from new york city, a look at the jewish vote this year, and after that, a discussion with economic advisers to the obama

and romney campaigns. >> i watch c-span every time special events are going on. any time something is going on, i want to watch c-span because they have the best, most unbiased view, so i love c-span. i watched them on -- i watch them on tv or online. i do not know if i have a favorite show. to me, it is just that whenever something is going on, i just know that c-span will have it. >> josh truitt watches cspan. as an's, brought to you public service from your cable provider. >> democrat tim kaine and

republican george allen are running for the senate this year. they participated in a debate, moderated by nbc news. >> and good afternoon. welcome to the senatorial debate between democrat tim kaine and republican george allen, hosted by the fairfax county chamber of commerce. i am a moderator of today's event. i want to cover the rules of today's event. it will last one hour and will begin with opening statements, and then the panelists and i will pose questions. those questions are determined by the panelists, by us. they have not been reviewed by the fairfax chamber. each candidate will have one minute, 30 seconds to respond, and there will be an additional one-minute rebuttal.

i reserve the right to be able to follow up with some questions as i see fit as the moderator. we will end with a two-minute closing statement from each candidate. there is a clock in front of each candidate noting the time. we have the northern virginia no bureau chief -- the northern virginia wrote -- northern virginia bureau chief with us, and there is a man who joined "the washington post" after being with another organization. and a man that attended virginia commonwealth university is with us. let's begin by hearing the candidates and their opening statements. the order was determined by a coin toss earlier today, so first, let's welcome former governor and the former chairman of the democratic national

committee, tim kaine. [applause] and next, we welcomed former governor and former senator george allen. [no audio] -- [applause] we will start, as i mentioned, because of the coin toss with governor kaine. your opening statement. >> thank you, and it is great to be back with the chamber of commerce. it reminds me of a similar event years ago. at that event, we talked about transportation, and at that time, there was no rail or hot

lanes being built, and i am pleased to have worked on that with you. we talked mostly at the chamber about economic development, and in my time as governor, we landed marquee companies, including volkswagen and northrop grumman, who announced they were coming to the neighborhood. we also got accolades every year of my four years as governor. i am proud of those accomplishments. i am proud we did it together, local, federal, state. but i am also proud we did it in the midst of a global fiscal collapse. today, we are here because we have got a congress to end gridlock. we have to grow an economy, and

to do it, we level the playing field for small business. we invest in infrastructure programs, like rail to dulles, and we innovate and come up with new alternative energy industries of tomorrow. we have got to fix the budget, and to do that, we need a balanced approach in both the short term and long term, and i hope we will talk a good deal about that, but the most important thing we need to do is put results over rhetoric and put substance over sound bites. our ideas are not the problem. it is our willingness to work together, and if i have the honor to serve as governor, i will do that as i have in the past. thank you. >> thank you. governor palin? -- governor allen?

>> whether it was to convince jobs to come to fairfax or investing in our schools and colleges and working with leaders of both parties to secure funding for projects like dulles rail, and i am very grateful for that spirit of partnership. i also want to thank my friend tim kaine. we both love virginia and have worked hard to make it better. at a time when so many feel that our country is on the wrong track and politics are so petty, i hope we can have a conversation here that can inspire people to the opportunities that will build a better future. susan and i have talked to many americans. they still believe in the american dream and want to restore the promise. the one to make sure they and their children have access to quality and affordable education so that young people can pursue their dreams. they want to unleash the enormous potential of the

plethora of our energy sources. they want to reinvigorate the entrepreneurial policies with reasonable regulations so the job creators have the confidence and certainty to hire again. they want to work together for real solutions. what they do not want to know is politicians and injuring hundreds of thousands of jobs in northern virginia, technology and defense jobs, and using them as pawns to a demand higher taxes or a budget deal. now, these are tough times, but out of adversity, we can create a more confident, caring, and prosperous america, and that is a positive agenda i will forward to discussing today, and the ida is what is best for the virginia businesses. >> governors, thanks to both of you. this is a high-profile senate race for the nation, certainly

very important for the commonwealth, and it is also occurring in the shadow of the presidential debate, so i want to ask you about 47% we heard about this week. governor romney in summer marks at a fundraiser taped earlier this year talked about how there is some 47% of the people that do not pay federal income tax. he said that he believes they are -- that they feel they are victims, that the government needs to take care of them, and that they are entitled to housing, you name it. part of that 47 percent said. what would you do about that? do you think that should change? and what do you think, generally, about too many virginians, too many americans being too dependent on government? >> you can say something off of

the gulf that you regret. i disagree with what mitt romney's said. it is condescending and divisive. the last thing we need to do at this moment is divide people, one against each other. this nation is divided and of an alleged apart enough. people need to be brought together. as we talk about these long-term issues, the country's fiscal policy, we have to have shared sacrifice. everyone has to help if we are going to fix these issues. we have got an issue on the table that is immediate, that is going to call upon congress and the president, which is how to deal with these year-and budget cuts. i am a simple and specific idea about how we can come together. we will let the -- i have a

simple and specific idea about how to come together. we will that the bush tax cuts expire. we will negotiate with medicare to get better drug prices. we have to find by year end about $235 billion in savings over 10 years. we can do that in the short term. >> do you believe that everybody in virginia should pay something in federal income tax? >> everyone pays taxes. >> the federal income tax. >> i would be open to the proposal to have some minimum tax level for everyone, but many pay higher taxes than governor romney does. >> the nominee of your party for the presidency, he believes that that 47% believe that they are

victims. do you share that vision of america, and what would you do as senator about the 47%? >> the best idea of what to see someone will do in the future is what they have done in the past. if somebody has a job, taking care of themselves and providing for their family, we have cut taxes and made virginia much more business friendly, adding more than 300,000 net new jobs in the private sector. one of the other successes we had while i was governor was welfare reform. we wanted to lift people out of poverty and towards independence, to have the dignity of a job. i remember here in fairfax county having a press conference, where inova was hiring. we had a press conference, and

reporters somewhat insulted a woman and said something to the fact of, what kind of job is this making pizzas? the owner of the franchise said, "how do you think i got where i am? i started making pizzas." another said, "i think is good for my daughter to see her mother working." that is what we should be aspiring to, making sure that everyone has the opportunity to compete and succeed. we need to have the policies that do not increase taxes on people but decrees them, and tim has got a different point of view, and one is where he was trying to raise taxes on people making as little as -- >> respectfully, i want to get back to my question. it was very specific. he said 47% of americans are too dependent on government and that they see each other as victims.

do you think that? >> as i stated in the beginning, david, the best social program is a job. how do you provide more job opportunities? >> do they see themselves as victims? >> no. i will bring positively at the people. >> you would disagree with governor romney on this point? >> would you disagree with governor romney on this point? >> i have my own point of view. our responsibility as leaders, as public servants, is to make sure that this is a place where everyone has equal opportunity to achieve their american dream. i will expand on this later in our debate, i suppose, but i think you look at the records. who has created more opportunities? i mentioned welfare reform. they were down and out, and they

temporarily needed help. even folks who are disabled want to work. that is one of the great attributes and characteristics. they do not look at themselves as victims. this gives them the opportunity to reach their aspirations and be that role model. >> we will take one minute for rebuttal. >> i do not think the question whether or not mitt romney's statements, you agree with them or not. i think it was very straightforward. they were divisive comments, and we have seen too much divisive politics. there has been an effort to turn our back on the divisive politics of the past. my wife, her dad, as a republican, he integrated public schools. he said it was past time for

virginia to have an aristocracy of marriage. that is what he said in a speech. -- yeah has rejected the kind of division that was contained in that speech. it might have been off the cuff. it might have been a gaffe. some things that -- and do not agree in, and i am glad they do not. let's come together, and let's come together in a specific way on the most important issue of the day, resolving the short- term fiscal challenge. >> a perfect segue. to my colleague now. >> defense contractors started to refer to something as the "s" word. sequester. losing some to wonder and thousand defense jobs. there are the defense cuts mandated by the sequestered that

starts to take effect on january 2. avoiding those cuts is going to require compromise in a different type of deficit reduction plan. given all of those virginia jobs at stake, how can you say no to any type of tax and revenue increase, even if it is paired with a greater degree of spending cuts? >> getting our fiscal house in order in washington. i saw this as being another example of washington leaders not making decisions, putting off decisions to yet another commission, which, if it failed, as it did, it would be the responsibility of the federal government, which is national defense, as well as it being what is known to be over 200,000 technology and defense jobs in virginia. what we need to do is repeal or replace obamacare. but will sit trillions in

spending, and that is harmful for business. i think we need to cut out and look at where there is redundancy in government. the government accountability office has put that forward. federal government employees, we have to reward them for cost- saving ideas. in the long term, a balanced budget amendment. tim said in the last debate that this is the right thing to do. now, he has, up with a plan. i will ask you, with your plan, have you done an analysis of the impact of jobs with your plan, and if so, who did the analysis, and what did it show? >> the plan is a compromise, and it is specific, unlike anything i have heard in the last 60 seconds. we have to deal with the sequestered over the next 10 years. let's do three things.

george allen voted for tax cuts, and he voted for them to be temporary. the reason was if he made them a permit, you would bust the deficit. it is time to let those tax cuts expire for those making more than $500,000. if they go back to where they were, we were in belt largest expansion in the history of the united states. fix medicare. allow negotiations for prescription drugs. that will save $240 billion over 10 years, and finally, takeaway subsidies from the big oil companies. they are very profitable, but they do not need our help. what you end up with then is not a $1 trillion problem. you end up with a problem in the $200 billion range. raising the ceiling, a default

for the nation. he spoke out against the fairfax chamber and other chambers, and now he is saying, "wait a minute. we cannot make cuts." when he is running as the guy who wants to make cuts. he has more sides then a rubik cube. >> what your so-called plan would do to jobs. i think you should be taking into account what the impact is on jobs, and our economy, which is a major, major concern. you talked about bob mcdonnell and eric cantor. what they did was pass a measure that would avert these devastating cuts to our national defense and jobs in virginia. what has this than that done? absolutely nothing. they have not passed a budget in 3.5 years. they were part of a committee

that you went around campaigning for. you have to start out with what the house passed, and then look at reforming the tax loopholes. the proposal i have will create more than 500,000 jobs per year, and we have to unleash our american energy resources, and that will create more than 1 million jobs in the country and give money to the federal government without raising taxes. those are positive solutions to improve our lives and our revenue, make our country more secure, and improve people's quality of lives. >> let's move on. >> governor kaine, i am wondering if you could say specifically if you have entertained the idea of getting rid of the deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations, and if not, what types of deductions would you be willing to eliminate? >> i am glad you asked that.

it is the second step in the process. we have to solve the sequester issue before the year end. i have a plan on the table, but that does not end the challenge. we then have the challenge on the revenue side and on the spending side. i know how to do it on the spending side. as governor, i cut $5 million out of the budget. on the revenue side, i do agree with the proposition, and this is something that george and i have debated about before, and we are essentially in agreement, that the right thing to do about revenue, after we let the tax cuts expire, as i explained, we fill in deductions and exclusions and reduce tax rates. you can do it and make it simpler some businesses and families do not have to have a tax account to figure it out.

i think the charitable and home owner deduction policies are very important. it is not about each individual deduction but instead looking at a proposal where there would be an aggregate total, an aggregate amount of deductions that you can play. the battle of each individual deduction could take congress decades. this is not a unique idea. others have advanced it. having a structure of aggregate total deductions is more likely to work going forward. >> the two separate tax processes we have. i am indicating a freedom to choose a flat tax. i think it would be unfair to take away the mortgage interest deduction and other deductions that people have used to make investment decisions. to all of a sudden change them would be unfair. however, if people want to have

a simpler tax code your deductions or no deductions, and they can fill it out on one piece of paper and multiplying it by the rate that it is, let the taxpayers decide. it is really what hong kong has done, and what they have found is with people choosing the flat tax, many went to be simpler tax. right now, our federal and government imposes a worst in the world 35% on jobs-creating businesses in our country. the average is 25%. i am advocating doing it at 20% because i think america should be better than average. this will lead to 500,000 jobs per year. tim does not have an analysis of his jobs plan. his is one of always trying to increase taxes. lower taxes create more jobs, makes our country more

competitive, and it is amazing to me that tim wood raise taxes on people on used cars and raising taxes on people making as little as $17,000 per year will put in jeopardy defense and technology jobs, and in my view, the men and women of our armed forces should never be used as a bargaining chip. >> as you take a moment to respond, when you talk about eliminating deductions, you would do that for everyone or just high-income earners? >> taking veterans hostage on economic issues, that is exactly the kind of name-calling that we have got too much of in washington. we can debate policies. but that is the kind of name- calling that we have seen too much of in washington, and what is wrong is not going to be fixed with more of that. he was a u.s. senator.

he was a senator for six years. during his time in the senate, his fiscal policies turned massive surpluses into massive deficits. it went up every second george allen was a u.s. senator. he voted to raise the debt ceiling four times and to raise his salary after york times. now, he is trying to look like a conservative, but the actions do not match his words. with respect to the particular questions on deductions, i think the right question will be some aggregate examination of deductions rather than try to fight the entrenched issues, and you can have the amount or percentage of deductions vary by income, with the way the tax code is set up already. >> we are out of time. >> may i have some time to rebut?

>> not according to your rules. you'd decided. >> governor allen, virginia voters are divided on whether they want they want this to stay or go, partly because it is so complex. do you want to completely get rid of the law as it stands and start over on help desk care reform from scratch, or would you favor some other method? >> i will answer the first part and then rebut some of the comments he made. with the debt, it is the spending in washington that has gone up to $54,000 per cent and in spending. tim criticizes the tax cuts we pass. they helped to create 7 million jobs in our country and averted a recession after the devastating attacks on our country on 9/11, so the idea of

who is fiscally responsible and who is going to create jobs, i think we will demonstrably improved job opportunities. now, on the tax law. this is also an impediment. i have heard from small business owners and community hospitals that this is harmful. small businesses do not want to get over 50 employees, and somewhat to make some of their employees part-time, and that will make others have to get jobs part-time. i do think it ought to be repealed and replaced. some provisions are good in it. i think covering children of to age 26 on a parental policy is good, especially since one-third of the kids graduating from college in this weak economy are having to move back home. i think we have to have affordable and portable health savings accounts, where people

can take them from job to job. with the northern virginia technology council, some folks have had three jobs before age 30. that is a good idea. and they ought to be able to band together across state lines and have more competition, more toys, and affordable health care, and i think we ought to allow the states greater flexibility in managing medicaid, and i'd think they will do the more efficiently. >> i will start where george started with the record. they were dealing with time bombs that are still going of today. it was unprecedented in american history. nobody has done that, and nobody has certainly cut taxes while you are trying to wage a war. expanding medicare without paying for it, unprecedented. and to persist in the notion that they should be made permanent when the cbo says they

had to be temporary or bust the deficit, it would demonstrate that a second term of george allen would be very similar to the first. the affordable care act. there have been 43 votes to repeal the affordable care act already, and i think there was a lawsuit that got some attention. the last thing we need to do is spend our time looking in the rearview mirror. we do not need to go back. the uninsured went up by millions, and premiums went up by over 60% when he is there. i am glad to hear george acknowledge some positives about the bill. we need to do more positives, largely around fixing costs. this medicare idea that we put on the table is a way to find cost savings to bring down costs in a way that will help the budget, help seniors, and will

not jeopardize the quality of the program. >> there are about 6 million americans who would want to look in the rearview mirror. that is the no. 2, in effect, a tax increase, many in the middle class, they were failing to get health care pursuant to the individual mandate. that is about 2 million more that was initially said. it take a moment to respond to that. >> this same group of people will have the ability to purchase insurance on health exchanges and have the ability to get free preventive care under medicare or prescription drug discounts under medicare. that same group of people can no longer be discriminated against because they are women and have a pre-existing condition. having a pre-existing condition and denying them coverage. there might be a cause, but

there was already in cost. people going to emergency rooms and seeking care and shifting the cost to others. responsibility is not a bad principle. >> governor, do you want a moment to respond to that? i met a philosophical question. according to the rules, you get one minute. i promise you, i am not making this up. we are taking more time away from you as we debate it. >> bottom line, are you committed to universal coverage, and how do you do this without universal coverage? >> well, here is the thing. there are so many things wrong with this current health-care tax law. in addition to adding $1 trillion in spending, we are taking $700 million out of medicare. that is why seniors are so concerned that they will have access to doctors.

there are some that said they will not take any more medicare patients. having these decisions made by medicare doctors and patients, not bureaucracies. i would make it a reversible tax credit, where people get coverage for major medical procedures, and by having its portable, it means that if somebody moves from job to job, they do not have to worry about a pre-existing condition that they or somebody in their family may have , so the me, that is a positive approach. it puts patients and hospitals and doctors in charge rather than washington. that would be a paradigm shift. the solution is not moving the $700 million from medicare, which is something we have to make solvent. it is in precarious shape.

we will be right back, after this. we continue with our discussions. >> governor kaine, whether you think same-sex couples should be issued marriage licenses the same way, marriage equality under the law. in order for them to be equal, would not all couples have to be allowed to get a marriage license. >> you know, as i get older, i have come to the conclusion that been for equality is never a bad thing. we do not make a mistake when we follow the basic constitutional prescription, that everyone should be entitled to equal protection under the law. my wife is here, and i will say a bad relationship we have had is one that i wish everyone would have, a long-term relationship, where you celebrate the joys, in view mourn the losses -- and you mourn the losses, where you

build up memories to sustain you into old age, i think everyone should be able to have that regardless of sexual orientation. i would like everyone to be able to have that and not have to hide it. i think it should be recognized and even celebrated, and i have taken the position since i have started the campaign that relationships should be treated equally, equally under the law, same responsibilities. i would allow churches as they do today to continue to recognize which relationships and they recognize in the church. whether they title a same-sex relationship, civil union or a marriage, but the test to me is whether the legal rights or responsibilities that someone else has, they should be able to have the same legal responsibilities and rights that i have. >> i just want to pin you down.

do you believe in gay marriage, recognizing the institution of marriage being impossible and, indeed, should even be legal between a man and a man and a woman and a woman? >> it has traditionally been state policy. i would like the state legislatures to make a decision as to whether they would accord this protection -- >> you are not prepared to say -- and when >> let me finish. to me, it is our people treated the same and given the same rights and responsibilities. i think legal equality should be the policy. >> governor, 1.5 minutes. >> i believe marriage should be between one man and one moment, and that is the definition i have supported. i do not believe in

discriminating against people because of their sexual preference. this is the way i have operated by senate office, as well. and look at people's capabilities, their skills, their willingness and being effected. to me, one of the most important things people can do is to make sure people have job opportunities, and we were talking about the health care measure. that health-care measure is a real impediment to jobs. whether you are a small business or a large business, this law is an impediment to you growing your business. i heard from a small-business owner who said her husband works for a company with 300 employees, and they were going to drop insurance. this is very disconcerting. when one talks about what is the best social policy for our country, jobs. jobs is the most important

aspect, and i think family is the most important institution in our society, and i think we should be judging people by their character and competence, not by the color of their skin or by their sexual preferences. >> i want to go back to an issue, which seems to be an issue for republicans, and generally. why do you think you pull much better among men -- among men than women? 14 points. is this a republican party problem? take 30 seconds. >> i think we are going to do very well with men and women, and after this debate, people will listen to this, and there are mothers that i have talked to, whether they are married or unmarried, they care about jobs and the economy. if somebody is unmarried and working, or if they are married,

they could be working, and they are also caring about the future of their families. a large percentage of graduates are unemployed or underemployed. i think we will be united behind these constructive ideas and send a message to the world that america is open for business with the right tax and regulatory and energy policies. >> governor kaine, your one- minute rebuttal. >> these are economic issues. the status of a relationship, if someone cannot have their relationship recognized, the inability to get insurance, that is an economic issue, and with respect to women, if you force women to have an ultrasound procedure against their will and paid for it, that is an economic issue. if you deny people the ability

to make constitutional choices, even whether or not to purchase contraception, that is an economic issue. when george allen was in office, he supported an amendment to enable employers to take away contraceptive coverage for their employees. these are women's issues, but they are bigger than that. they are family issues and economic issues, and it is demeaning to the thing that they are little social issues. women are more than half of this economy, and we have to make the right decision. >> there was a verbal insult directed at a campaign worker, which was an insult that many viewed as an ethnic slur. it still lingers in the minds of some voters. what do you say to those who are

still troubled by that comment, how they should give you a second chance, and how did that comment change you as a candidate and a person? >> i have stated on many occasions that that was a mistake. i apologize for it. he had a hard job to do following me around the commonwealth of virginia. losing is a humbling experience. i did not like losing. sometimes you learn much more from losing than you do from winning. one thing that my father has always taught me, and he was in sports, when you get knocked down, you get back up. whether someone is a woman or a man, they are going to care about jobs and the economy more than anything else, so we are working as hard as we can to make sure this campaign is one that motivates people to constructive, positive ideas, it is not just rhetoric.

it is a record i had as governor and as senator. we were able to work down party lines. we were able to get our economy moving, and with that, the tax cuts, reducing the size of government, over 300,000 net new jobs. tim tried to raise taxes. the members of the general assembly had to work on this. tuition skyrocketed, and over 100,000 jobs were lost in virginia during his four years. those were the approaches. this provides more americans with greater opportunities to control their own destinies. >> i think the biggest question that virginians are wrestling with as they look at this election is a look at a congress that is broken, and it is broken because people will not work together.

we do not have a shortage of ideas. what we seem to have a shortage of is finding common ground and working together. a similar question was raised again to george. i pointed out that, look, we all make mistakes. in public life, we make them in public view. but there was a notion that this young man had to be welcomed into the real virginia. that was the challenging one. we know that a lot of politics in this state over time has been separating people into real virginians or other virginians, and we have seen that this week at the national level, but that sentiment is still out there. we are only going to solve the big problems, balancing the budget, dealing with a new energy future if we work together, and, george, you famously said as you were

governor that you enjoyed knocking things down people's throats. and senator clinton, pushing the campaign when you were chairman of the senate republican campaign committee. some of it may be just sports or competitive rhetoric, but that is not what it is going to take to fix washington. we need more bridge building. we need people who can find common ground. that is the one thing we are missing in congress right now. we have to put people in place who have a demonstrated track record and have the ability to do it. >> jim, you pick out certain quotes from me, and let me pick out some of the ones that people have seen about our records. "the washington post," which rarely says anything good about republicans, said this about me.

>> governor allen has been markedly successful in generating business investment in the virginia." the virginia education association said our budget was the best they had seen in a number of years. democratic senators, and they support you, tim, they have stated publicly how we have worked together, whether it is health screenings for newborn children or expanding access to broadband, and then when tim was taking office, here is what the newspaper said. quote, "is tim kaine is looking for a role model, the george allen term as governor was one of the most consequential of the 20th-century," and this was not incling some of the things we did, like freezing tuition. the u.s. chamber of commerce endorsed me.

>> there have been some reports in recent days suggesting that the u.s. consulate in benghazi may not have had heightened security. do you think this could have been handled better either before or after the attack could >> i do not know the details, but i am sure the answer to that question is yes. when something goes wrong, there is always something you could have done better. april 2007, there was a shooting at virginia tech, the most significant crime in the history of the state, and i had just landed in japan on a trade mission, and i got on a plane and flew back, and i spent time dealing with the breeding members of that community, and i said we would put in place a panel of people that have no connection to virginia tech, and

we will have them turn it upside down so we can minimize the chance of anything like that happening again. we can minimize that chance. we found a lot of things that could have been done better. it required us to make significant changes to the mental health laws and to people who were adjudicated for being mentally ill and getting firearms. there were things that have gone wrong, and we fixed them. i am sure there were things that went wrong that led to the death of this wonderful ambassador and others, including a man who was just buried yesterday in winchester, virginia. i am sure there are things that went wrong. what did the administration needs to do is dig into it as deeply as we can, and then it see if we can resolve them so the diplomatic people can keep

doing their jobs. >> is this a broader issue in regard to the arab springbrook >> in some regards, yes. let me just take a moment and commend to him, as i am done before, on his leadership after the tragedy on april 16 at virginia tech. that is a time where tim and all americans were united, and we improved the safety of our colleges, so, tim, i commend you once again for that. now, in terms of national security, there are a lot of challenges facing us. there was an uprising in iran several years ago, when people wanted a more free and just society, when i was just hoping they would be on the side of changing that oppression of -- oppressive regime, but they stayed silent.

there was when ronald reagan called the soviet union the evil empire. if iran gets nuclear weapons, that needs to be prevented. you have worries about, particularly in syria, chemical weapons stockpiles. you have the attacks on our consulates in libya and egypt and elsewhere a rumble world. this is why it is a dangerous and so wrong to be playing these political games with our armed services. we need to be strong. we need to have a strong economy and to have a strong national defense, but the last thing that we need is having these devastating cuts to our military readiness. we have to stop these devastating cuts, come together, said the right priorities, and make sure that the men and women that are protecting our safety and freedom and our elections here have the best armament and equipment and making sure we keep those good paying jobs in

technology and defense here in virginia and not use them as a pawn to raise taxes on jobs- creating businesses. >> governor kaine, one minute. >> let me just go to the last point. nobody is talking about using the military or veterans as pawns. i have never heard that statement by anyone accept george, kind of throwing back at me, and that is the kind of charge that you have to be careful about. i take second to no one in appreciating the service of our folks in active service and in the military. military guardspeople, 15,000 of them deployed in the war on terror. i went to iraq and afghanistan, and i celebrate the fact that all units are home. we have to figure out a way to get to a result port -- point. again, i have laid out a pretty

concrete plan for how we can in the short-term avoid sequester cuts so that we do not harm defense and so we protect the northern virginia economy. this is not about taking anybody prisoner. it is about solving a problem. we have to have some problem solvers. >> i want to give you each one minute to respond to this. the war in afghanistan, one decade plus. our troops are being targeted, by the same troops that we are trying to stand up so we can stand down. governor ella, can we accomplish the mission in withdraw troops if we do not have an afghan army sufficiently stood up? -- governor allen? >> i do not think it is a great idea to have our opponents know when we are leaving. that just does not make sense. their families are serving as well.

we are giving them the opportunity to stand up and take control of their destiny. there will be ways as the troops come home, and they will come home with their heads held high. with the drones and other things, i think there are ways we can monitor the area and precisely strike if there is any terrorist activity, not just their but in the border area with pakistan. what is going on right now is just a reminder that the afghan people need to take control of their own destiny. we have lost a lot of our american treasure, the folks who have sold -- to have served there. if the afghan people do not stand up for themselves, we cannot do it for them. >> i would just start agreement that last part. the u.s. cannot be the

guarantor. the mission of the u.s. presence in afghanistan i think was completed with the death of osama bin laden and the elimination of the top leadership of al qaeda. that is why we went into afghanistan. we did not go into afghanistan to remake civil society. we went in to get osama bin laden and al qaeda. having completed that mission, we are now withdrawing troops. the challenges we have going forward is the nature between afghanistan and pakistan, a nuclear nation with a nuclear arsenal, and the prospect of instability in that region, potentially putting that nuclear arsenal at risk, and i think that has to be part of what we do as part of the drawdown. >> we have reached the park for

your closing statements. >> thanks to the fairfax chamber, and i also want to thank george. we have been competitors for 17 months, both working hard, our families working hard, our team is working hard. and while i will not say the i will take george allen as a warm water on policy, i do remember that outside my district of richmond, i viewed him as a role model, with the vigor with which he campaigned, and a lot of people in our line of work make it look like root canal surgery, and you'll enjoy it, and so do i.. we need a washington that is clearly about results. in the aftermath of the debacle, we got eight bond downgrade, and it was really telling to have the s&p american credit. they did not do the downgrade because they did not like the mechanics of the deal. they downgrade us because they thought too many people in the

leadership class were using a routine vote as leverage over the economy. too many people were playing chicken with each other on capitol hill, rather than looking at the people who were depending on them and trying to do the right thing. we have to fix washington so it is about results. we have to grow the economy. we talked a bit about some strategies. i have a plan that i invite you to check out. leveling the playing field. we have got to find common ground and fix the budget. there is too much division in congress, and that is why it s&p and moody's have said we have got to put some people and they're willing to compromise. the challenges on the table before us right now is this issue of sequestered. i have laid out a pretty simple, straightforward plan. let the bush tax cuts expire over $500,000.

take away on necessary subsidies. then you get a cut, accounting for billions in savings. it is time for specifics. it is time for action. it is time for working together. >> thank you for this opportunity to have debate today. tim, you keep talking about the plan, and we still do not know. if you want to raise taxes on exxonmobil or others, we want to go into the impact. which approach is going to be best for jobs here in our country. i envision a better future. david asked me about who are you targeting in your campaign? there are various percentages. i think about 99% of the folks should be on our side. anybody who uses electricity, anybody who drives a car, anybody who pays taxes, anybody who works for a living or once a job should be on our side.

i figured that is about 99% of the people that should be on our side. with what tim is talking about, it would affect the price of electric v. we would be paid $30 or more when we fill up, and if you like our gas prices, but if you want it more affordable, and i want to allow us in virginia to produce oil and natural gas off our coast and use those royalties for roads and transportation. that would be the first bill that i introduced as your senator. this creates more job opportunities, and whether it is young people or middle-aged folks. many in our country are unemployed or underemployed. i respectfully ask for your support. let them know if they use electricity, drive a car, pay taxes, what a job, or care for

-- care about the future for their family, they should come to the george allen's side. we want to make sure that america is once again the land of opportunity for all to reach their dreams. >> governor, thank you. thanks to both of you. i want to thank that chamber. thank you as well to our terrific panel. do not forget, stay with nbc news for continuing coverage of election 2012, and do not forget to vote on november 6. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> more at senate debates coming up on c-span. a debate between a republican senator and his democratic challenger from nevada. that is thursday live on c-span and also on line at c-span.org. and friday from wisconsin, republican debates his opponent. that is 9:00 p.m. eastern. he served as the governor until

2001, and she represented the second district in congress since 1999. >> the first debate between presidential candidates mitt romney and president barack obama is next wednesday,>> the n presidential candidates is next wednesday, october 3. the news hour's jim lauer moderates. get a preview at 7:00 p.m. eastern. and your reactions on comments, follow our live coverage on c- span, c-span radio. >> of the new york city that supports president obama, congressman bob turner, a republican. this is an hour and 40 minutes.

>> we are here once again for the wine institute in connection to dedicating to examining the 2012 presidential election and the way it may be being shaped by the memory of the holocaust and the politics of vitriol. you can find a note to more interesting people to discuss this topic for many reasons. first, the former three-term mayor of new york city, ed koch. people forget, i do not, but people forget that he started out as a congressman. the discussion we are talking about is not merely about his days as a mayor, but who knows what that means in washington. i think in his more recent vintage, you can think of him as

a king maker in the jewish vote. he may not agree to this but many people think of him as a barometer of sorts. he may disown the kingmaker title, but to some degree, our next guest might say that the support that the mayor had given to you was, in fact, helpful. >> it was beyond helpful, it was critical. >> bob turner is a congressman in his first term, a decent and a likable man. very much involved in his first term. you very much decided to get

your hands dirty in the most difficult issues of the united states. we are happy to have you here and it is important to remember that there was quick applause for bob turner. you know why? he may become a king maker himself. what we have to point out in the acknowledging of bob turner's election, it required mayor koch to cross party lines. he is in a democratic district of brooklyn. i am so sorry about that, the manhattan-centered rosenbaum. this is not the first time that he has crossed party lines.

he famously said, i don't agree with a single thing, with the exception of the fact that i think he is peddling terrorism. in the case of the movement's support for bob turner, you and i did in the event shortly thereafter where you explain your support and you said, i did not think he was sufficiently haggling is foreign policy correctly with respect to israel. >> with respect to the jewish community. >> you said you eventually met with president obama and he solicited my support and i

decided to support him again. i want to step in here because it was apparently just last week they you delivered a speech at a synagogue for rashashana. >> i continued the discussion in the new york post. >> you were again, critical, of the obama administration. >> i have never seen nor perfect candidate and i was not perfect. i will always speak out, but if you read the article today and my other utterances, it has always been stated that i am still on the obama train. i will explain why. >> we would definitely like you to do that. if you address the question of the red lione.

tell us what you said last week. >> i was incensed, as i believe every american was, what occurred in both egypt and libya. in egypt, the embassy was overrun with cops. they did not ran away -- run away. the libyan cops ran away, didn't protect the embassy and worst of all, the ambassador was killed, so to speak. i don't know exactly how. along with three other consulate personnel. i did not believe the american response was adequate.

the american embassy in egypt initially put out a statement that was denunciatory of the video that some muslims were saying was the reason for the attack. it was not sufficiently denunciatory of the egyptian government, in my judgment. hillary put out a magnificent statement that follows the white house, repudiating the american embassy statement and making a statement calling the egyptian government to task i. in libya, we were more conciliatory because the libyan president denounced the attack.

but that is not adequate. control the cops and military, it is not a government. we should be denunciatory. i doubt there is a single country in the world left in civilization that would not have called back its ambassador. and certainly cut off, or put in terms that relates to the 2 billion that egypt receives from the united states, i am sure libya receives money. it was even greater because the american ambassador -- i am

supportive of the arab spring. the times and elsewhere, i said to myself, they are not great people. but they are people that surely will turn out nice to us. it doesn't make any sense. >> the events of the last week, the embassy attacks, it will result in a further ongoing shift of jewish americans changing --

>> i think there is a little more to follow. the shift in special elections indicated deep distrust of this administration. that was clear. what the administration said, you heard what the state said. the message was sent loud and clear. for a while, i think it was always together. we have heard the state department say that they have taken every reasonable step. we have heard the quote from the ambassador suggesting he was comfortable and these people love me. it's not true. he issued a statement saying he is very concerned about his own

safety. again, we have an information gap. that is coming home to roost. this will build. theoday's new york times, interview with the new egyptian president adds to all this. if the united states wants to have good relations with the arab world and with egypt, it has to jettison a special relationship with israel. when the united states took on the role of mediators between israel and egypt, it was understood that there is not only a special relationship, but there is an ally in the united

states. when is it entered that position, the palestinians still want the united states as we know, no other country can get israel to ultimately allowed a second state or a palestinian state next to israel. it means the security the united states would provide as many people think it wouldn't because if you look at the palestinian situation today, i am for a two-state solution. will it happen in my lifetime? no. do the israelis want it? yes. do the palestinians? i don't think so.

they have not been for more than a year. and the reason i believe that is because they think that they can wait out the western world and ultimately have a single statement to overwhelm the israelis. that is why if you hand over palestinian authority -- he has an honorific name i was looking for. if you ask him, do you accept the jewish state? not just the state of israel, but israel as a jewish state, he says, don't ask me, you don't have to do that. that is the heart of this. if you have to states, one as

muslim and one is jewish. mean that christians can't live in the muslim state. or will they have fled because of their muslim neighbors? they are less than 2% living on the west bank. they had a christian majority. many of them have come to the united states. the majority government on the west bank, the sector now called israel will have the right of return. that will simply overwhelm the jewish state and it will not happen. it will not happen.

netanyahu has said that he believes in the two-state solution. i do not think that the arab leadership believes it. and certainly on the strip, every jew that enters the palestinian mandate after 1917 must be expelled. they have also declined to get up violence -- give up violence. it's a facade, a fake. >> congressman, given what you heard the mayor say, to some degree, do you agree with him? you think president obama is listening to what the mayor said?

politics of the mid-east? do you remember his speech in cairo, he never went to jerusalem after that. it was very much apologetic. there were these ongoing messages to iran where the president was welcoming the new year for the iranian people. and it doesn't appear that the united states has enhanced their credibility after these conciliatory gestures. you heard the mayor speak so grimly of what he thinks the future will hold. >> we have not only a misreading -- to four years

ago, this administration set out to reset relationships. doing a good deal of personal diplomacy, all of you can win over hearts and minds of increasingly radicalized islamic worlds. the results of this in a short time, we see a reluctance to understand what is really happnening to get -- happening to get back on policy. not only are we too often on the wrong side of this arab spraiin, we fail to recognize the

the danger thnd it's causing. we haven't gotten into the iranian thing. i think this administration has dropped the ball. and they are capable of changing their mind to put this right. >> will the mindset and tactics in handling the middle east, does it change the nature of the electorate in terms of how they will vote? historically, it was always said that they never vote their economic interests. they became professionals, and even still promoted the democratic party even if they could have been republicans

economically. this democratic party has nothing to worry about because they won't move off of that no matter how much wealth they might achieve. it is very much with israel in mind. is that still true? >> i am not sure, i think people on this issue of israel and the voting pattern of jews -- that is my recollection. it's in that area. young jews, we have forgotten when the holocaust came, the children that were at the 500,000 children killed during the holocaust.

historically, jews have an enormous social conscience which is reflected in the biblical package -- addage. why do they repeat the word justice twice? justice not only for jews, but for all the people. i belive that. eve that. >> you believe they have internalized that? >> absolutely. i believe that when jews vote democratic as they do overwhelmingly and as i do overwhelmingly, it is because of social conscience. there are lots of things that are important. among them are social security,

medicare, medicaid, abortion, food stamps, taxing progressively the wealthy. and foreign affairs, those are the partnerships, so to speak. and on the issue of domestic matters, i don't know how you can be against the platform of the democratic party on those issues. something that bob and i read to, we will get into that part of the race or not. so when i announced what i was going to take on the issue of sending a message here, there are only two special elections

and the whole country. my political friends said, you are crazy. i announce that i would do what i could to make this a referendum, sending a message to the president. i want him to know that i disagree with his decisions as they relate to a number of issues in the jewish community. >> q frame bidder earlier as respecting the jewish community. -- you framed it earlier as respecting the jewish community. >> in any event, i said i was going to lead that challenge. i got a call from the democratic candidate who i knew at the

time. i had worked with them and we had a good relationship. he was screaming at me on the telephone, which i can understand. i said, david, this is not personal. not that it is going to help. he said, i can be the message. i said, you can be the message that we send another jewish democrat to washington? that is not the message. the messages that we send a republican. rob turner said, let's talk about this and see if we can come to an agreement. i said, please come up. he was highly intelligent. i said, look. i can only do this with you on

the following basis. i am sending a message to the president of my party and you have to be sending a message to the national leadership of your party that we don't agree on privatizing medicare and social security, turning medicaid into a block grant. i don't care about your other issues, but on those, we have to have an agreement. he said we agree on that. we don't have to agree on every aspect of that, but i wanted that made clear. we agree that that was the key. he kept his word, i kept my word. he won with an eight point margin. >> roughly. >> unheard of.

300,000 jews live in that area. the congressional district did not go democratic. i got a call a couple weeks later from the chief of staff, a wonderful guy. the brother of the former mayor of chicago. the grandson. meeting, i know you're with the delegates at the second street library. i said, sure, who wouldn't? he said, half an hour early.

i came half an hour early. the president came man, i want to give you all the details, but he said to me, i don't understand why you are upset. i am really supportive. he is an affable, charming guy. i like him. i like him then, i like him now. we spoke for 20 minutes and he said, your turn. i had 10 minutes. i would not have been so critical of you if you have said that we can go back to the '67 lines even though they are

indefensible and i don't agree with you. have you also make demands upon hamas, you didn't. withl doesn't have to deal them until they give up their charter. did he die? i said, no, mr. president, he did not. he convinced me and i was molded over in the next couple of days. i will not stretch this out and keep them wondering. i do not believe in that. do it now. i called up the people infovled. -- involved. i agreed, they said we could go to florida.

i will go anywhere you want me to go. i am not sure i can do that anymore because of my physical condition. rowboat calls, videos, what ever. indeed, hospitalization. [indiscernible] so that is where we are. >> congressman, within the last year or so, i did an event, very similar. also a heavily jewish audience. it was packed. i did not know there were this many jewish republicans. and in this discussion, one of the things they said is, very

surprising to me that more jewish-american don't support republican candidates. precisely because of the number of issues important to the jewish community. he was genuinely baffled and said, i don't see how anyone can think that the democratic party is a superior defender of israel. is that another reason why this election, there might be more movement than you would have otherwise expected? >> this is a tough one to figure out. eric cantor called me a week after the election and said this is the first time a republican has won the jewish vote. maybe something is happening. i got some interesting advice.

i hadn't been in politics very long. if you have two jews, you have three opinions. [laughter] truism., i found, was as we look at the changing patterns, the wisest person i know in politics said that the jewish vote is such that the conservative, you can get an appeal to. make sure you spell out your social agenda. the secular jewish vote, very legitimate socialism.

what may get them back in the tent is israel. 20% would be enough to win the election. the district is 33% jewish, perhaps more. the jewish vote, which historically had been a block is not. >> could that be mirrored in other districts? i think i had mentioned to you but did not tell the audience that we did another event. shortly after your election, he said that was a freak accident and had nothing to do with the obama administration's treatment of israel. it had everything to do with the increasing conservatives --

>> she will say things like that. the jews that vote in your district are naturally more religious and conservative. it is a common thread. >> this is the part of the entire american electorate. whether it is virginia or whatever. i think as the election becomes more focused, the divide will be more pronounced. >> it is a little confusing thinking about the 2012 race, israel is in your sight lines. on one hand you have clearly at icy relationship between the prime minister of israel and the president of the united states.

it is not a good feeling. the defense minister says that when it comes to military spending, the iron dome defense system, remember this is not the first time that egyptians ransacked an embassy. they ransacked the israeli embassy eight months ago. this is the second time in one year that in egypt embassy is fair game. the prime minister called obama immediately and obama got on of holland -- the phone and said, do something about this. protect these people. she will routinely say that this is the best president in american history in terms of support for israel. in terms of military spending,

we have never got more support. but if you ask people on the street, they have a very different reading of the feelings of obama to israel. >> i had taken the position up until recently that israel should not be an issue in the race because the parties are both supportive of israel. it should relate to the domestic issues where there is clear cleavage between the two. that has been my position. that anyone can rightly say that president obama is the best president. i think reagan was. i think second bush was. ut he's acceptable in my

judgment. i hope to change him. i talk to people, they know my views. i am not reluctant. i tell them exactly what i think. and i have never believed in the conversations because they always appeared interesting. maybe i am just somebody else, but they will appear. we occasionally make errors. i am not bad at this stuff. i have made very clear where i am. there is further support of israel, there was a magnificent

speech at the un in support of israel. he kept the palestinian authority from getting independent states opposed by the un. he has done wonderful things and i give him the credit for it. it gave him his political start. i understand that in chicago. i've believe what i am talking about is doable. all this could be wiped out in terms of bitterness and so forth if the president would just say, an attack by iraq on israel will be received by the united states as an attack upon the united states. and we will respond militarily.

i think you can say that about saudi arabia, too. when i made my statement, you should make people turn to vote. iran wants to destroy saudi arabia, too. >> we will get to iran in a moment, but let's pick up a little of that. it is confusing if you watch both conventions and you listen to people for both parties. one will always claimed that they are superior to the other in their historic support of israel. you have people telling us that republicans are stronger. i forgot these efforts to thwart the u.s. recognition of statehood. that is something obama has not received enough credit for. within a year, we have both a

jewish congresspersons, one republican and one democrat saying opposite things. your party would do better in the white house for israel. >> i certainly believe so. it is a very critical period. small things can mean an awful lot when the president has not been to israel, snubs the prime minister, has made outrageous claims. these have consequences. i think some of the arab states right now -- these are big blunders. >> you mean the book, thldest of

the arab states? >> that daylight between israel and the united states. this is an administration of a great deal of rhetoric. let's look to the actions. >> that is an interesting point, congressman. there are people that say, it doesn't matter if there are nice photo ops. but does it matter what president obama is eating in jerusalem? >> it does matter. >> would you measure military support with the diplomatic aid? he may not love is real.

>> i am not asking obama if he loves it, if he believes it is in the best interests of the united states to support that relationship that every president has done. does he believe in order to satisfy the muslim world, that somehow or another, he has to separate from israel. it is absolutely true. by the way, the president's people say that there was never a formal request for a meeting. i believe them. i believe they are honorable people. not having that meeting is unfair.

my contact said that the israeli the first sent the request had to walk that statement back. i accept it as true because people that told me this are honorable people. i agree with bob that the most important saying is not to give the world the idea that if they keep attacking the united states, we will somehow throw israel under the bus in order to have a better relationship with them. every time we do something that this lodge's the space between them. it is in our interest to make

sure that iran -- >> we can, but -- >> iran is an enemy of both the united states and israel. can you count on pakistan? can you count on afghanistan when the chips are down? they hate us. they are killing us. we should be out of afghanistan tonight. but we are there with our young men are dying. i read in the times that the reason we don't fix the capital is that we don't have any money,

and we jus tspent money -- just spent money completing the american embassy in iraq. >> congressman, you were seated when netanyahu added congress a number of months ago. what we all remember about that day is that there were three standing ovations for an israeli prime minister. many people thought it was incredibly presumptuous. that they think he should be addressing the house of congress. and that he presented this later -- rescinded this later that the ovations were paid for.

>> an outrage. tom freedman said that for palestinians to engage in the same and throw stones at israeli soldiers was in the times. i want to tell you. i was in israel in 1990, 10991 when they said people are not coming -- could you come, maybe that would encourage americans to resume tourism? i met with teddy who is a great friend. >> he was the mayor of jerusalem at that point.

>> he said, to show you the archaeological museum that we just found. he did not tell me there was a dental strike. we're going to the old city and he had no security. it was amazing. i had five cops. the mayor had nobody that protected him and there were 25 reporters. they were hit on the head, bleeding, and ultimately went to the hospital. i had stitches in my head, so i am telling you that i would be blind. tom freedman who has never apologized for it urged palestinians to throw stones at israeli soldiers.

they shot people threatening them with life and limb. assailing those israeli soldiers for not being kinder. >> you no doubt remember that day. is the support of israel genuine in the house of representatives? is there a strategic interest in the united states to maintain those strong relationships? >> the relationship goes from strategy to culture to a commonality of interests. it is both sides of the aisle. >> one of your early days in congress, it was reported as a special moment to see that many standing ovations. you would have stood. >> absolutely.

>> during the campaign, i would have been jumping up and down. >> why do you think that the jewish electorate has changed at all in recent times during the obama administration? do you think that the support among non-jews has changed in any way for their support of israel? >> with respect to the obama us support of the jewish community? i think it went down to a low ultimately after the election. it rose over 60% now. with respect to the american people, it's very interesting.

democrats, at one point, not too long ago, only 48% of democrats were supportive of israel. 85% of republicans were supportive. >> it has gone up, democrats. >> you are saying that support among republicans is higher? >> it has always been higher. we are talking among the -- >> among the general population. the percentage is higher among republicans. that is a nice lead in for you. >> i see a lot of forces at play right now.

the leadership of the democratic party is taking a harder tone. palestinian platform, among other things. there is a moderate democratic vote and there are liberals and who need a place to go. you know, the republicans right now are not as low coming to a large group -- welcoming to a large group. also within the republican party, we have the party on the far right with problems. -- ingw it with

>> you don't go bowling with them. why do you suppose the mayor -- a higher percentage of republicans than democrats among non-jews? why do you suppose that is true? >> we see a commonality of interests of culture and strategy. we, republicans, have an ability to look at reality. this islamic revolution is serious business. >> they want to kill us, too often, in the house. or in committees. democrats >> talk about you have

the presbyterians, the baptists, we have different forces at work. we need to be able to win this and listen to what they are saying. the secretary of state, what we on arab radio and television and newspapers, we go into our policy. we are dealing with other places in the world. >> interesting to me, again, the times' reporting the interview,

they said you have to accept our societal rules. i have no objection to upset -- accepting egyptian societal role so long as they apply to egyptians. when they impose them on other people, for example, blasphemy, we don't recognize blasphemy as a criminal offense. at all. the united states freedom of speech says there is no criminal charges of blasphemy. in arab coutnries, they - country- is, they kill people. -- in arab countries, they kill people. she found something that were burned. they are responsible.

ntries, i think it was pakistan, a couple was charged with adultery. they have a rule that may not fmohamm -- ofs o mohammed. the danish cartoonists are protected by danish police. enormously, in terms of trade, the new york times didn't even print those cartoons out of fear, undoubtedly. it is certainly worthy of public notice and would endanger their reporters. in france, the ysaid wy said, we

respect the muslim religion for them, but it is not for us. and they expect us to end our first amendment -- s, can notrican,s c accept that they have their culture and we have ours. we stand for freedom, rights, i don't think that you should back off of those for one moment. we support israel that has their values as well as ours. there is a very different set of police. it is just imposed upon them by political and religious

leadership. >> iran. before we get to that, i want to talk about the 1980 presidential election because you were involved with that one as well. and there might be a parallel here that we can discuss. historically, an american presidential elections, 50% of jews to vote for the democratic party. and president carter, the each got 40%. congressman anderson got 20%. those numbers were just historic. it may or may not have

influenced the race, but it had a post camp david ethos. yet another un resolution where they passed a resolution saying that jerusalem was occupied. and the occupation of jerusalem, that issue was not strongly preventing that. >> he directed the un delegates to vote for it. i was coming back from china and i was on the plane. the captain of the plan says that the president would like you to call him before, when you land. i call thisd, number and the president took

the call. first, chit chat. then he says, have you heard about my problem? i say, yeah. he said, i need your help. he said to me, i did not know what was then that resolution. he lied. how do i know? because our delegate publicly said that he read the resolution to jimmy carter. jimmy carter instructed him to vote for it. >> there have been at least one abberant presidential a election in which jews voted in a divergent way. do either of you think that we might see that kind of dip for 2012, or does president obama

maintain the numbers on jewish voters? >> new york is a very important state. it is tough to say what will happen. i think that the president loses florida. >> is this a possible revisit and of 1980? -- revisiting of 1980? >> i think the president got the highest number of jews, the second-highest being 95% of all blacks. it's not hard to understand why. people, not only jews, we were so excited that we would have an

african american candidate president in the white house. i think that that pride or sense of feeling isn't something that you can say based on our history and how it wipes out. we now have come to the point where a black man or a black woman, or any other group could achieve that. i think he will not get 78%, but i think that the president is going to win and be reelected. it is part of that as opposed to having the time to stop him.

>> we will take questions from the audience and another break. it is largely dedicated to the memory with respect to the moral failure of nations that fail to act as well as righteousness. i thought that one of the lessons of the holocaust, that is what they tell everyone in grade school, when a madman says that he is deciding to kill a certain group of people, you take him seriously. you are supposed to listen to people at their word. do we listen and internalize everything?

-- he never actually said the final solution. >> what he said was if there is war, you hold the jews responsible. i remember that speech. >> ok. so i think the prime minister at one point equated hitler with him. some people in israel were critical of that. >> why? >> he is not that he is not quite that. >> i do not know how you distinguish between killing all jews and killing all jews within your authority. >> if we have learned 70 years

later the lessons of the holocaust, why isn't the united states and the world taking the president more seriously? >> i was shocked when the new the "new york of th e" ne times" said, why should we not have the bombs? president obama said we do not accept that they should ever get the bombs and that we will contain them. not at all. we will not let him get the bombs. to have the former editor-in- chief of the "new york times" to

propose that, i said, this is substituting israel for checklists of akia -- czechoslovakia. this is the bomb. but then destroyed. what is the bombing. to me, that was extraordinary. i do not happen to believe that israel is going to do it on its own because there is such dissension in israel as to whether or not it is possible to do it on your own. there was a tip of the hat related to that when the prime minister said, it will take six months before they get their bomb. that is after the election here. i believe there will be an

israeli intervention on their own. i do believe the president should say an attack upon israel and an attack on saudi arabia by iran will be perceived as an attack on the united states and we will respond militarily. why they have now said that -- i a senator in january of this year made the statement that that is exactly what we should do. he is the chairman of the senate defense appropriations committee. he knows where he is speaking as it relates to the military ability of the united states.

>> there are some who say the united states should take more of an aggressive approach. >> we are in the prevention policy, not containment. are around last november, the open intelligence briefings suggested that by september, october, iran would have enough material to make two implosive type advices. -- devices. weapons-grade. they were working on that. the sanctions was going to try to slow this down. we know the number of subdivisions they are making and creating. they have accelerated their program, not decrease it.

the sanctions are working very well for what they are supposed to do. there and goal is to see-- their end goal is to see we stop them from doing what we -- what they are doing. they are not. >> what about waiting them out? the idea the sanctions will eventually work? >> we are dealing with a time line. if the time line was this time of year and now the conversation has shifted to a more sophisticated weapon than simply an implosive device and maybe we are six months away from that, the device i mentioned could be put in a container ship and sent to a harbor and to a great deal of damage. we do not want them to get to the point where they can do that. recently, a prime minister

suggested he wants to see the president. the president blew that off. why? he did not want to hear that the plant -- what the prime minister was going to tell him. what do you think he wants to tell him? here is the timeline, mr. president. by this date, they want to have it. we have to do something now. we have to get inspectors in paris -- to see they don't. we have to take that material out. the president did not want to have that meeting. he did not want to hear it. >> what is the mood on the foreign relations committee and the homeland committee backs we do not have hearings on the subject. what do the members of the committee think? these are people for whom security is paramount.

do you think they -- you would think they have given us more thought. >> the topic is shifting more to the strategic and tactical. there is a profound pessimism, even without our allies, , that this will be resolved in a diplomatic way. >> they are pessimistic about that. everyone thinks we are sliding into some conflict that will take place. >> it is coming soon. there is talk on the consequences. we cannot simply attack and go about our business. this will set off a whole chain of unpleasant, long-term -- >> a 15-minute amateur video no one would have ever seen could

set off ransacking embassies all across. >> the people who organize this can stockpile insult to islam. there are enough publications, cartoons, video, internet access, that they can pull out and say here is the latest insult. i do not buy that for a minute. that this was some spontaneous demonstration. [applause] >> but it is -- >> in support of bob's point, why did it happen on the anniversary of 9/11? that is fooling no one except our state department. >> it is frightening implications. this is merely a sneak preview of far more radical --

>> they want to kill us. through history, there has been an effort by the islamists to resurrect -- that would run from spain all the way to indonesia . they would be under the rule of a religious -- a religious leader and having a theocracy instead of the secular states that exist. >> this will be a massive iran. \ from thetake questions audience. i am shocked by the hands. i did not think anybody would have anything to say. right here. very important. no speeches, only questions.

also, speak into the microphone. c-span is here. you should have your questions report -- recorded. now she does not want to do it. all of the sudden, she is shy. >> ok. basically it is a question for response. i am not sure what i was going to say to. you have basically right raised. the fundamental question is whether this administration really has a middle eastern policy. the administration just ducks. you mentioned starting out the olive branch to either trippeeg. moving on to different -- during the iranian efforts against the administration.

>> the question? >> giving things -- >> the question? >> i will get to the question. you basically had no policy, it seems to me. it is endless reactive nest. >> i will. essentially the question is that this woman is saying she does not think the obama administration actually has a foreign policy. certainly consistent when it comes to dealing with the middle east. >> i think they are consistent in their inconsistencies and lack of policy. we have been getting political slogans and not policy solutions. >> if you need to leave for whatever reason, can you please go out the back.

it is true to our guests. go ahead. our guests.o go ahead. >> what is the plan to salvage social security and medicare which we know is on zigs and a reason unsustainable? what is the plan? we have had enough of hope and change and now we are getting forward. we need something more. >> i think the answer is the domestic policy and interest -- inconsistencies have also emerged. we have a question. wait for the microphone. >> my question is should the jewish population, the voting population, be satisfied with the fact that a -- christian evangelicals are in our quartecr

when it comes to israel? i heard on tv saying that jerusalem should be the capital of israel. i said, this guy is really great. but then, he said, with the resurrection of our lord and savior, he will be the ruler of jerusalem. >> you heard this. this woman said there is a mixed bag with the evangelical support. >> let me tell you how to handle it. i think the evangelicals are terrific in their support of israel and should be encouraged. the fear that is often expressed by jews, the evangelicals

believe that before christ can come again, the jews have to accept him or they will die. that is the general exposition. my response to that is this. if there is a report that the out.ah is here, see him ok him asked him if he is jewish. he must be jewish biblically. if he says he is, then say, is this your first or second visit? [laughter] if he says is his first visit, then the evangelicals will convert to judaism.

if he says it is his second, then we should convert carry [laughter] . [laughter] >> you always some it up quickly. >> you have evangelicals not necessarily in your district. an evangelical support financially that came from another part of the country. >> it turns out, we get no support financially either, even from the republican party. sadly, it is more pronounced in the islamic world, the end of days. a lot of people think this is coming soon. they can help along. -- help it along. this is very bad reasoning. what is coming out of iran is far more frightening than

anything out of alabama. there ando back up come back down. we will not miss you, ma'am. there you go. good choice. nice shirt. >> this questioi heard you whene supported bush, you said, i do not agree with him with his foreign policy. >> no, i do not double -- agree with him on a single domestic issue. he thinks terrorism is a form of criminology. -- criminality. >> you did it as far as israel was concerned, you felt you supported israel. >> you are not quoting me correctly, although i happen to believe he was very supportive of israel.

the " is the one i gave you. -- the quote is the one i gave you. >> when obama ran, you said you were supporting obama because of his stance on israel. you said that was one of the biggest mistakes you ever made now. >> oh, please. what is your question? >> are you now supporting obama? >> yes. i said that at the beginning. >> why are you supporting him? >> i think i already gave my reason. i will briefly. i believe there are a whole aspect of the issues to be considered. on domestic issues, and i will not go through it again, you cannot compare the democrats to the republicans. the democrats are so far better

on medicare, medicare, social security, abortion, taxing, etc.. with respect to his position on israel, i hope to move his mind. >> we will come back. i feel like i was not clear the first time. questions. not speeches. questions. just get to the questions. >> you mentioned the fact that it was said the united states is assisting israel with all their military cooperation, that president obama is good for the state of israel. is it possible there has been some pressure that was applied to the israeli government?

is it also possible israel is being placed in a particular position where they have to say some positive statements for the obama administration because they have to head for the possibility he may be reelected? >> the question is when it was said the united states under the obama administration, at least to respect to military expenditures and cooperation -- intelligence, right. intelligence information has been terrific. this gentleman speculates there has been pressure in israel for there to be a positive statement. >> i happen to believe he is an honorable man and he would not say that if he did not believe it. i believe he believed it because it is true.

>> congressman? >> i think the level of military support at about 3 billion is failing for quite a number of years now. the intelligence services have indeed worked very well together. when that statement was issued, that was probably before the joint israeli-american exercise was canceled in the gulf. it was a shocking surprise for the israelis. so i would take what was said there and factor that into it. >> how about this gentleman in the middle? the first two were late. [laughter] all right, you will be next. >> you can tell this is a jewish crowd. >> what are my cautionary words

again? >> my question is i would like to hear a response to the statement this morning by hank , what you think of that. given the location of the jewish vote -- jewish vote and the numbers, he did not think it would be at all significant in this presidential election. because of the location. >> i never heard his name announced before. one of the leading pollsters recently indicated he did not see the jewish vote would make much of a difference in this election. >> it is a matter of opinion. >> the largest concentrations of the jewish vote in california and new york, they may be decided.

>> is there any question new york is going? >> i am not ready to write it off yet. >> that is the first time i heard you say something that -- [laughter] >> we will prove we are gender- neutral. you have to have a really good question. >> can i say something? she intimidated you. >> she's scared the hail out of ell out of me. >> one of our topics is the holocaust. before we get into too much about votes and policy in the u.s., can you touch about -- touch on that when you mentioned munich? there was ample evidence in europe and america of hitler's intentions before the first

concentration camp was built. what is it that american jews do not understand about the rampant propaganda over the middle east? muslim schools, among the clerics, among their governments, that they want to get rid of the jews as they did before from their territories, from what they consider their [indiscernible] ? if we have no answer, what can we do about it? >> you touched on this early on. you said younger jewish- americans, they do not get the concept. this woman is saying, what is it about what we are hearing, the noise and chatter in the arab- muslim world, specifically among younger jewish americans or thater americans, period,

they have an unfamiliarity of the history? class i think that is true. young jews today do not know the history of the holocaust and it is really quite incredible. you should understand. the goal of islam's has historically been the destruction of western civilization and the forced conversions of populations all over the world to islam. the sole exceptions would be christianity, christians and jews, if they accepted the supremacy of islam over their own religions. this is a fight that has gone on

for hundreds if not thousands of years and will not be over for many years to come. my fear is we lead the good life. they envy us, hit us, why? we have an extraordinary civilization. we want to live. we do not want to die. they believe if they die killing an infidel, they are lifted to heaven and have the services of 72 virgins. i did not make that up. when you look at some of the -- not the koran itself but other holy books in islam -- some and was upset because he was criticized for using it. mohammed said look behind that

tree. there is a jew behind that tree. kill the jew. i am paraphrasing. kill the jew is his language, not mine. nobody cared. you do not taken seriously. why not? they did not take adolf hitler seriously. they thought it was a moment in time past. it did not. >> i had a promise. [laughter] >> i just want to say this is 36 people who asked me this question. i asked you this question. my husband and i, we spend this summer in israel because we were lucky enough to have a 19-year- old grandchild.

the question they gave me, and they all give it to me, was, given obama's record, how could you put him into office a second year where he can then do anything compaq'? [applause] i have to say this. >> that was a good question. >> it is a factor that as it relates to many -- factor as it relates to the vast majority of jews in making their decision. with jews, when the election is over, and president obama can no longer run again, and will his support of israel be kept as a commitment or will he burned the jews? that is the heart of it.

there is only one answer for people like me. i believe he is an honorable man. if i believe -- you may not. i believe he is an honorable man. if he makes the commitment, i believe he will keep it. it is as simple as that. >> let's take one more question. a much younger person. let's try your spirited will be the last question and then we will say goodbye. >> thank you. approximately an hour ago, the associated press release a story that a senior-ranking general in the iranian national guard stated that, in any situation, if israel would attack iran, they will see that as an attack coming from the united states report. they will be open to retaliation by the iranian government. do you believe the opine that --

obama administration and his policies are not taking an intimidating enough stance? they are not scared of us. >> this is a mirror image of your point. your point was president obama should say that the attack on israel is an attack against the united states. this young man says an hour ago, it was reported one of the generals, an iranian, just said an israeli attack on iran would be an attack on america. american military bases would be vulnerable to our retaliation. >> it does not shock me. the iranians, if they were able to kill and destroy every israeli, that would not stop them from trying to kill and destroy every american. at this moment, they have the

means to deliver a missile, to destroy israel. maybe two or three nuclear bombs would destroy the place. they did not have the response -- a capability to destroy the nine states. once they do, i do not think they wouldn't use it. >> the iranians would attack us through the sarah gets. countries in a ride or revolt. we will see something like that. we will see course of action here. there is a network in south america, where there is a colony of over 30,000 people. we have offered as working, 450 in venezuela capture.

in ecuador, etc. if there is an attack, we better be prepared. it will be worldwide. >> let's try that chairman over there. right there. -- gentleman over there. right there. >> when you said president obama hould say, and attac attack on israel would result, an attack on america and america would respond, is that already not too late? said the attack the on iran before they develop the capability to attack? >> this is not a "gotcha" situation. the president has already said

we will not permit iran to get the nuclear bomb. he said that. hold it. what i am saying is that was clear -- that is what he has said. the united states will decide for itself when it is appropriate to stop them. israel has a different point of view. the united states has a different point of view. what i have said is totally different than that. and just as important. >> truly, the last question. this woman. i will have to get both of you. [laughter] two more. these two women. that one and that one. >> one thing is true. the people who come to this

conference are motivated. nobody is some of that was created by our esteemed guests. >> what is congress doing? i am petrified president obama .ill be reelected des what can congress do to rein in some of the things he has done? >> like what. ? >> grovelling in cairo is number one. groveling. not in the way spain said he was apologetic. i am sorry, spain. he was groveling. the truth is the muslims understand, but they do not understand weakness. they take advantage of it. sending a birthday card is the most ridiculous thing in the world. that is not it. i want to know what congress

could possibly do to help. >> appropriations rise out of the house. we have to hold the house, which i will expect to happen. we have over 40 bills, many of them limiting aid to egypt, to other arab countries, until they do certain things or respond in a certain way. the senate is sitting on these right now. we can, even in next year, the next house can limit appropriations. but that is limited. the senate still has approval on treaties and the president has executive power. but, if you look at past history, the polls, the

demographics, the president 6, and thee 54 to 4 republic will be saved. thank you very much. >> last question. and we will say goodbye to our guests. the question? >> yes, just a question. in a couple of days, wednesday. the platform will be taken at the united nations general assembly. my question escapes what actions can we be taking similar to canada shedding their embassy, what can the united states do with regard to the international court of justice? there is talk right now about recognizing the fact that he is on a genocidal task. his calls are genocidal.

that is against a member nation of the united nations. how can we as america do something to ensure iran is thrown out of the united nations? he cannot be given platforms like this. he is now the secretary for the mam for the next three years. >> how can the united states get iran thrown out? do you realize iran just held a meeting with 40 countries? i thought it was 40. even more important, 120. you are suggesting the president should organize an assembly to throw iran out? me, butyou'll forgive it is ridiculous. we pay dues but we do not decide how countries will vote. thank god none of the votes in

the assembly are mandatory in terms of being carried out. that has to be done through the security council, where we have a veto. to suggest that we go down the path of trying to throw iran out of the assembly, you are spinning your wheels. thank you. >> congressman? >> to even debate the efficacy of the u.n. is a waste of time. they are a colossal failure. [applause] the league of nations, we have had some successes in humanitarian aid and some peacekeeping. beyond that, this is an enormous propaganda machine against us and against western

civilization. we ought to recognize it as such. >> with that final word, we want mayor ed the former welfar koch. and bob turner. thank you. >> both presidential candidates are making foreign policy addresses tomorrow. live coverage on the c-span network. at 9:00 a.m. eastern, mitt romney on the global initiative in new york city. you can see that live from our companion network, c-span 2. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, president obama addresses and assembly in new york. that is live here on c-span. at 12:10 eastern on c-span, remarks from president obama. later in the day, mr. romney has a date in ohio. their campaign rally with a

running mate paul ryan. watch live at 3:00 p.m. eastern, also on skis -- on c-span. >> the first debate between mitt romney and president barack obama is next wednesday, october 3. he watched and engage with c- span, including our live debate preview starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern. post-debate, your reactions and comments. call, tweet. file -- follow on c-span, c-span radio, and online at c-span not work. >> i watch c-span. especially when events are going on. any time something is going on, i want to watch c-span because they typically have the best, most on biased views of what is happening. if i want to get spun in a circle, i watched one of the other news organizations. i will watch c-span on tv and

online. i always turn to c-span. i do not know if i have a favorite show. it is always at a time i need to know what is going on, i know c- span is going to have the real story. >> death watches critics josc-sy the public service by your television provider. >> economic advisers to the obama and romney campaign spoke today it is spoke today at the at the national press club. we will hear from the vice president of the national association of business economics. >> could afternoon.

welcome to the economic debate, 2012. i am the chief economist and i am president elect of the national association for business economics. this educational form is brought to you by nabe. nabe is a nonpartisan, professional organization. our mission is to provide leadership in the use and understanding of economic. this event is the fourth in a series of economic policy based that began here in 2007. among nabe's other educational initiatives are our annual meeting in new york next month, and economic policy conference here in washington next month, and our semi-annual economic policy survey. we release the results of the latest survey today. we have posted a full copy on

our web site. we have hard copies available for those of you here at the national press club. the survey provide the survey provides a summary. this is on current fiscal, monetary, regulatory policy in the european debt situation. joining us are partners with fidelity investments represented here with lisa mattingly will make closing remarks. this is our effort to provide a policy forum for these presidential campaign advisers. we hope today's event will broaden the understanding of the proposals of prospectus with the debt and focus of a format like this one can provide. you can follow and participate live by tractor at #nabedebate. he is an adviser to the republican presidential nominee mitt romney and dr. jeffrey liebam. their biographies are available at our website. it is our privilege to turn this

are to our co-moderators. judy woodruff has a way to speak with audience in a clear but never simplistic fashion. david is into millions of listeners through "morning edition" his new book on the deficit challenges. it is all yours. >> you should have made the introductions longer. you are on a roll. [laughter] >> thank you very much.

we are both delighted to be here. we know there are so many issues people are interested in. none more important than the economy. that is why we're really thrilled to be here to take part in this debate. the election is only 42 days away. with every day, more questions pop up. the more the public wants answers. the candidates debate start next week. i think our opportunity today to talk with these two advisers cannot be more timely. i am just going to start by asking questions that david will come after. we're going to go back and forth. we will see where it goes. we will be looking to the audience for you to ask a question. why did your candidate believe that this economy is not creating more jobs?

what would he do to change that and make things better? >> we came through the deepest recession since the great depression. we were losing 800,000 jobs a month at the time when the president took office. we have been working our way back. we have added 4.6 million private sector jobs over the last 30 months. the economy is still not going fast enough. the primary reason for that continues to be insufficient accurate demand. if you ask employers why they're not hiring and so they give surveys consistently that they're not sure not that the consumers will be there next year. if you do not know if your customers will be there, you're not going to be hiring people now or building new factories. what we need to be doing now is doing for other things to get the economy growing faster. the president has proposed the american jobs act. it would provide small businesses with tax credits if

they hire new workers are give raises to existing workers. it puts construction workers back to work building our highways and our bridges. it would prevent layoffs of teachers and firefighters. it would make responsible homemakers to have not been able to refinance be able to do so. paul ryan and the republican congress have bought the american jobs act. on top of that, by romney and paul ryan are proposing excessive budget cuts next year that would set a million jobs out of the economy just when we

need to get the economy going. the president's plan at a million jobs. mitt romney's plans attraction million. there's a $2 million difference in what would happen. >> how would you answer that question that i will give you each a chance to respond. >> there is no question that both sides would agree that job creation is absolutely unacceptable. looking at things like the unemployment rate only tells a little bit of the story. before the crisis it is about 63%. this decline in the population that is employed is the biggest policy challenge facing americans in my lifetime. certainly we have had for policy challenges. no one would ever ask me about four policy.

it is the biggest challenge. i think there really are contrasting views about what to do. first let's talk about the big picture, which is why is it that jobs are not being created in the u.s. we have insufficient demand for sure. as we saw in the answer and as we have seen in president obama's policy, when i was taking economics with a demand and supply curve. this has been really radical. i think it is both. one reason why if you are supplier you might be pessimistic is that we have got deficits that are just astonishing. we have a debt to gdp which is almost at the level that we had at the end of world war ii. there's just a report on fiscal adjustment that evaluated which once had the biggest problems. the u.s. was the third worst. we are worse than every country

in europe. you see a situation like that, it is right for people to be anxious about the future. businesses pay 10% of the shortfall going forward and higher taxes, it they would have a negative net worth. you're not going to see a big expansion of supply. without that you like it expansion of demand. governor romney is expecting to get a fiscal consolidation that repairs are entitlements. also to influence short-term demand by reducing the corporate rate so that we are no longer the highest in the oacd. there are two places other than

the u.s. that are less friendly. the president thinks we can ignore those things. i do not know how you're going to go. >> we need to get into these other questions about investments and tax policy. on what he said about jobs, response to the part that obama has only been focused on the demand and not supply side. >> that is not true. from day one he started working on controlling health-care costs in doing health care reform bill. it has set the stage for an ending. we have no health care costs. he created the bowles-simpson reduction and put forward a very specific deficit reduction plan last year working with congress. he passed $1 trillion in spending cuts. there's a big contrast between the present specific plan to bring down the deficit and to do it in a balanced way with both

spending cuts. this is a balanced approach. mitt romney has said no new revenue at all. he said he would not even accept a deficit deal that at $10 of spending cuts for every dollar and revenue. his proposed $5 shy and deficit increasing tax cuts. he has no idea how he will pay for any of this. this is very serious. the president has taken the deficit reduction problem. we have seen this movie before on the republican side with the

kennedy's call for tax cuts for the rich and increase defense spending and they told they would tell you how it would be paid for later. >> respond on his point about jobs. >> this is something that i think needs to be more clear. gov. romney has a very detailed to plan. it used to be that all respectable economists thought that was a good idea. if you look at the assertion that president obama that makes sense are at up, that is the biggest fraud i ever seen in american politics. what are they waiving away as their $4 trillion number? they are waiving the president's budget. that budget was criticized by hardly a lackey of the republicans. there are $1 trillion in there because of the peace dividend.

frankly when i looked at the $4 trillion, i wondered what they did not make it $10 trillion. if you look at the other phantom savings in the $4 trillion, there are all sorts of things like interest-rate savings and so on. this is accepted by every budget analysts. the thing that really rips me up is that he mentioned the stimulus plan from last year. he is blaming the republicans. there's a lot of blame coming from the other side. the position is that we need to invest more in shovel ready products. that is what he is saying. do you know where they advanced the money that it is with a $1 trillion peace dividend? you cannot both have the stimulus and the $4 trillion saving at the same time. you cannot do it. >> judy asked you a question about jobs. you started by saying it is obvious that there is a demand and supply problem. what is the romney approach to the aggregate demand? >> the approach is to have the tax side to broaden the base and lower the rates, a survey of

economists that were surveyed. they suggested in 86 out reform would reduce growth over the medium term. i think that would be a little high but it is a lease in the ballpark. >> he said it will increase demand? >> absolutely. it will lower marginal rates and increase their consumption. governor romney has proposed a

cut to the 25% which is less than i would like. right now if a firm was to locate investments, and this goes into g.d.p.. then they pay the highest tax. if they want located anywhere in the go, then they pay much lower rate. if you reduce that to 25% without a phantom tax increase, that would absolutely dry that capital spending. there is not a business economist in this room, and the first organization i joined after graduate school [inaudible] there's not a business economist in this room that said if you cut the capital rate you would not get spending immediately. >> how does the tax could play in aggregate demand? >> when consumers have more

money in their pockets they spend more. it depends on what consumers they are. there are different estimates about what actions are in their pockets. they also look forward. if they know the tax cuts will not be sustained, they will lead to large deficits and then they're less likely to spend them. >> what is the obama answer to inadequate demand? there's also something of monetary policy. ben bernanke has said that we have an unemployment rate that is way too high. he has proposed a way that he thinks would address that. do you think he is doing a good job and that this latest thing is in support of this economic growth and demand? >> they have better economic performance than this for monetary is criticized. there's a strong thought in this country that people on campaigns or associated with the

executive branch do not comment on specific monetary actions of the fed. this is so important to the economic health of this country. i would say that nothing it has been helpful at all for the professional republicans. i think this is bad for the short term. >> i think there is a difference between politicizing in having an honest policy debate. i think the federal reserve's actions, and i have known that bernanke for a long time, i understand where he is coming from. i think that the fed's policy actions have exposed as to very little upside. i think it is absolutely almost patriotic to have a policy debate about whether it is a good idea to do what he is doing. one of the things you have to do is think about what happened

that the fed next. if you're trying to think about who should be the fed chairman after ben bernanke, the only thing i can think of is david copperfield. if you do not a fiscal policy and control, then the fed's job is impossible. for the past four years fiscal policy has not been under control. that is why debt to gdp is looking like what it did. and that kind of environment, the fed has an impossible job to do. i think the big expansion, we have to talk about it. the fed is in an impossible situation because this policy is so broken.

that uncertainty and large deficits can suppress that. and so, i think that the policies have balances, so you can talk about specifics. i think it has to begin with the acknowledgement that it is an impossible situation. >> come back to taxes. it we touched on a number of different things. what was your answer to the question about whether the tax rate was going to grow? that was kevin's point. >> the president has proposed a corporate tax rate. unlike governor romney, there are 10 things you can pay for this. there is no doubt that a lower tax rate, if it is beneficial,

it would be good for the economy. it is almost certainly bad for the economy. higher deficits can do more damage. you know, the fact is, right now, i would recommend president obama use it in the debate. it is one of the reasons why we have the deficits. that is what they are doing. and so there is not corporate revenue being taxable revenue. the president's plan has been a little bit of moving pieces. they cut the rate to 28%.

the president's position is that we should start from the position. we have the lowest corporate revenue to gdp that you could imagine with the highest rate. it is a five alarm fire at the way to address that is to increase taxes. >> i wanted to have a follow-up. i heard the interview last night, playing upper income and middle and come. -- income. they would not see their taxes changed overall. he talked about loopholes but did not go into specifics. help us understand what the dividing line is between middle income and upper income in his mind. >> i am not a psychic, it is not a conversation i have had. it is definitely where you draw the line between upper and

middle income. >> 75,000, if we are talking -- >> we are talking about the and come tax that is mostly paid by the top half of distribution in the top 10%, people that itemize tend to be wealthier than people that don't. you eliminate tax expenditures and lower rates and a way that can ultimately improve people's lives if you manage it right. i know that governor romney has been criticized for not offering exactly which things he is going to reduce. if you look up the tax literature, there are different proposals, a lot of places to start negotiations that would lead to reform. you might remember with bill bradley and ronald reagan, a bipartisan paying.

>> he has been very specific about the tax dollars that our country can't afford, including each millionaire. he wants to give each millionaire another $250,000, and he has not named a single tax expenditure to get rid of to pay for this. after the election, we will figure it out. they added up all the tax expenditures. except for the ones on capitol, they said that given how massively targeted the tax cuts are toward the rich, without raising taxes. and so, governor romney has proposed a plan that will

massively increase the deficit or if it is revenue neutral, it will raise taxes on the middle class. it has been entertaining to watch the romney campaign reacted the tax policy center study. they said they left out economic growth but it turned out that it incorporated economic growth. even to show that if you incorporate economic growth, there is no way to pay for the tax plan. kevin said, the best estimate about the tax reform was that the plan would raise gdp by 1%. it turns out and $86 billion hole, if you get rid of the tax expenditures, i can't believe that governor romney wants to get rid of all of those reductions. 1% of gdp is too high.

it gives you about $32 billion. they pointed out that that did not work. in harvard and harvey rosen in princeton, they put out studies that would be supporting romney's plan. you have to eliminate all the tax expenditures. 100% of the reductions down to that level, those numbers don't add up in the romney plan. he is proposing either raising taxes on the middle class or massive deficits. >> of 13 words or less. >> first of all, i have to say that the tax policy center plan is the most partisan thing that has come out of the think-tank.

by clark 15 in, the morning. the next day, it is in ads. if you look at the choices they made, romney had a deficit shortfall. that was the assumption that they made. that is like immediately the obama campaign ads. anything governor romney ever said would support the view that he is going to increase taxes, it is just a lie. the basic principle. everything governor romney has said, i will say it now, he knows that is true. if he is proposing a $5 trillion tax cut, you push a campaign that is consistent with everything governor romney has ever said.

if you think that it doesn't add up and if he can't get to 28%, they would have a different change in rates. governor romney believes he can get to 28%. in office, he will try to do it. there is no way in hell that anybody believes he will increase taxes and i can't believe the obama campaign will say that. and an economist would be up here repeating the stupid and inane talking plants -- points. >> says when governor run it will cut income tax rates by 20% across the board, that is a lower priority promised? >> he has always said, always accepted by every respectable economists is that we needed revenue neutral reform.

>> the accusation is that he said things that all of them can't be true. dodge the accusation is that he is promising to raise taxes on the poor. >> the candidate says three things and it is not possible for all three things to be true, people are speculating on which one he doesn't really mean. the one he may not be able to keep as the lower income tax rates by 20%. >> i am saying that if i were writing the study and i found that if i cut the potential base in half and all the stuff as off the table including muni bond interests, you find you d on't have enough revenue, what kind of grade would you get? what is the tax increase for income below $20,000.

>> we are facing a huge deficit problem and it is completely irresponsible for a candidate to propose and be specific about a massive tax cut targeted at the rich and not being able to pay for it. dr. coming from the guy that photocopied his budget as a four trillion dollars savings and got no votes in congress. he promised he would cut in the last election, he had control of the house and chose not to do it. he knew it would harm the economy and it is promising to do it again. the nuances you want to get straight, why would you let a guy run with no plan whatsoever? the proposal was the same as last time which he refused to do. is the economy so good that we can raise marginal rates?

>> president obama has a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan , it actually reduces the deficit and actually starts to bring down the debt to gdp ratio. it is completely itemized and completely in contrast to governor romney that might pay for everything in the tax plan. >> used 86 as an example and the governor proposes a revenue neutral tax reform. in other words, the governor thinks he can reduce the deficit without raising taxes in the static cents. since and bowles says no. of those bipartisan plans say you can't limit the tax increases to the top 2%. the question would be, kevin, you bring the deficit down and

not raise taxes. that same question to you, how can you limit the tax increases? >> we know that everybody knows that the problem is if you look at the medium and long-term forecasts, it ends up higher than is typical. spending is really out of control. you have to go after spending. the governor's proposal is to put forward what he would do to spending. matt jensen and andrew biggs and i have a paper on fiscal consolidation that looks the countries are around the world

and we find that there are two types of countries, successful and unsuccessful. those that reduce the deficit, 85% spending cuts and 15% tax increases. the unsuccessful ones were about 50-50. if you go through the fancy mechanics, it's about a 50/50 plan. they assume that we are starting from a baseline where we have already had the top marginal rate. governor romney has put this plan down and if you had a plan like that, would it harm the economy? there are two effects. one is the near term and potentially negative gains of fact, and the other is the sigh

of relief the fact that we go through a world where you have an imbalance that can be sustained. sustained. if you focus your reforms as governor romney has, what you do is create the sigh of relief a fact without having a big near- term effect. i just want to quote glen. he basically says that no serious budget analyst agrees with the $4 trillion accounting. >> of the thing that simpson- bowles showed is that if you want to still be able to make important investments in manufacturing that will build a strong economy and create a strong middle class jobs going

forward, it has to be a balanced approach. what the president has shown in this budget is that the marginal rate will go back up to the same rate it was under president clinton. and if you cap the tax expenditures for high income folks, it comes with enough revenue or you can start bringing the deficit down. the president thinks that over the last 15 years, the middle class has struggled before this serious economic downturn. maybe that is not the answer. >> if they come back to the president before election day, to kevin, if it were to come together, the president has

already weighed in. and what would he do if he had another bite? >> i will not speak for the president, but here is my guess. he put forth a budget that follows and matches almost exactly the revenue as a share of gdp. it cuts domestic discretionary spending and cuts other domestic spending and health care, agriculture spending. it is different in three areas. the president did not want to cut defense spending, and the president thought that the social security plan was balanced toward benefit cuts. they would say it is a good

framework, obviously, negotiations have started. >> i think they are already modeled after the typical reform. the reforms have failed for a couple of reasons. the other is that the tax hikes to give people shelter to avoid the really tough changes to entitlement to have a really sustainable fiscal consolidation. president obama, it really needs to have higher tax revenues and smaller spending cuts. it is basically designed to make this plan -- mimic this plan. this argument, president obama

is pushing it even further. it is more modeled after the lessons of the past. >> the piece that addresses defense cuts, you say the cuts went too far. obviously, defense cuts have come up again as part of the sequestration. the fiscal quiff we can address, but it raises a question about defense cuts. how much concern is there on the part of the president that defense cuts, this really does go to you, kevin. to what extent does cutting defense cost jobs? i am thinking about what george allen is saying right now. >> it is a threat and i don't want to give anyone the

impression that i understand what the right decision is, given how hard it is to think about those things. if you look at marty feldstein, talking about how if you want trouble ready process to stimulate the economy, to turn the knob up at the assembly line, the capacity that we might need in the event of ramping up military production. president obama rejected that. they did not follow his advice. >> they have all these different multipliers. i don't know if one know what is

the macro class. >> gdp has government spending. if it drops next quarter, it will go down. that doesn't mean that we should go out and take money away from capital formation. i am not speaking for governor romney, but he has been very concerned that the decay of the nation's infrastructure. government spending in the short term and the near-term effects gdp. you can't run massive deficits without having that kind of depressing effect. we are in this cycle of dependency, we need to a

consolidation in the near term. if we do that, we can go again. it is not to waive that, it is due to the hard work of a bipartisan way to bypass the fiscal consolidation plan. number two, we just had our level of defense spending based on defense needs. and certainly, we should think about the very rapid changes. we justify our level of defense spending is not because it creates jobs. despite the large deficits we're facing, governor romney has said that we should be 4% of gdp, an increase over 10 years.

he has not justified this with any specific military program. given the serious fiscal situation, it is a serious policy. i think it is a benefit to fiscal health. finally, i colleagues suggested -- my colleague suggested we ramp up production as part of the stimulus act. working on the omb team, reaching out to economists to get the best ideas we could get, i talked to marty and he made the suggestion. i talked to my deputy responsible for my defense and security policy. they reached out to the defense department to see if we can do this policy of ramping up production in the short term.

a they went and investigated and talked to the firms that were involved. they said, we are fighting two wars right now. if you give us more money right now to try to shift things forward, it would take a year- and-a-half to build them. they said they could not wrap it up. we were told it was not feasible. >> let me turn to medicare for a minute. we do have a spending problem and we don't seem to have talked as much about medicare as i would like. the medicare status quo is not sustainable. irani and ryan approaches to go to the support where people would get a set amount of money and be competition among private insurers.

the criticism is that it would shift the risk onto the shoulders of the elderly. the obama approach is exclusively on reducing payments to providers. can you defend your approach to why you think it is the answer of what you would say is pretty serious spending? >> you are right that we can't have health care spending continuing to grow. otherwise it will eat up the whole budget. it affects workers' wages, getting the wages that they would otherwise get. what we need to do is change the way that we pay for it.

we pay hospitals and doctors more. and instead, pay them based on the quality of care. let me give you an example of what is wrong with the current system. when you are discharging patients from the hospital, making sure that they understand the discharge instructions and what medicines they're supposed to be on, making sure the patient is following through -- that nurse, doing the preventive intervention did not pay for it. it is not reimbursed by medicare. the current payment system does not do the right thing.

they tried to do diabetes patients or the kind of preventive investment. we will switch to a payment system that rewards the quality of care in the way for the fee for service system. the health care reform that the president passed a couple years ago moves us in that direction and lay the foundation -- lays the foundation. not by passing costs to seniors, but in the same way, making people healthier. in the second decade, the affordable care act is going to save $1.60 trillion because these reforms going to affect as has the stage for a much more

efficient health-care system. >> when present obama, basically it is an expanded entitlement that will cost the taxpayers a heckuva lot of money. everybody knows in the long run, there are a million tricks that made it go ok. there is a sketch of how bad it is going to be, what is considered by the essential theices, it's a service y're taking their money. and basically, the idea is that this big expansion, this entitlement is going to save us money. governor romney house a proposal that in the long run could get

ahead of the curve by creating competition between firms. competition between firms is really the only hope that we have. having a single payer pay providers less and thinking it will not affect anybody's welfare is a pipe dream. dodge the idea that the solution to medicare is to give people a voucher from health insurance companies and giving them a bigger cut i don't think is any evidence on that. we would have the most efficient health care system in the world right now. the romney plan says to each senior, we will give you a fixed cash amount and you will have to buy from a private insurance company that insurance package. and from the house budget, it

won't grow as fast as health care costs. the cost of health care coming out of their pockets, a recent study by harvard colleagues found that what this would mean by someone who is 50 years old today is $125,000 over a lifetime. we actually have to make the tough choices on how to make the system more efficient. passing costs to seniors is not the way to make it more efficient. >> it clarifies exactly the disagreement that if you think a government monopoly that dictates prices to producers can influence the standard of care, if you believe that is the path to go down, he will be waiting in line for every procedure.

if you pursue a plan proposed by paul ryan and governor romney, firms are competing for your business. it is such a setting that maximizes efficiency. >> i guess is 65 now, medicare going up to 67. what is the thinking of your side of the ledger whether it is president obama, or governor romney? >> he does not think the social security retirement age should go up. the kindergarten teacher, or a construction worker, they have worked hard all his life and he can't do it anymore. if those americans want to access the social security benefits, you should be able to

do that. i am not sure what the answer to that is. >> the position on retirement age, governor romney's plan, i think it is there really sad way to restore balance in the long run. and frankly, as an economist, as we look 30 or 50 years, looking at what happens to the entitlement programs as we start to have the longevity that we might get, they're going to have the bill than the some kind have ags that they don't system that is sustainable. >> of the social security fiscal hole is not as big as the other financial challenges. it is not as big as the budget shortfall.

they clearly do need to get ahead on this and deal with it. with new revenue, meeting in the middle, they get the job done. mitt romney has proposed a completely unbalanced plan that says no new revenue for social security. it is completely on the benefit side. there is a 30% and balance -- imbalance. if romney going to solve this on the benefit side, he will protect low-income folks and disabled, we're talking about somebody making $60,000 a year with a 40% benefit cut from social security. president obama thinks that we should have a balanced approach.

that we not do it through benefit cuts. >> [indiscernible] social security is the easiest of our problems. we are promising to pay future rich americans, and if you think about this as an alternative buffett rule. we don't need a bankrupt ourselves to do that. the fact is, there is so much leverage to be had. the problem with president obama is that he seems to be looking for every excuse. if it doesn't require a tax haven, it just reject it for that reason alone. >> i will change the subject and i believe that governor romney

has said he would raise the medicare age to 67. i believe president obama offered that. before we turn over the questions, not involving the u.s., i am not sure there was a difference between the candidates on china. both sides seem to have been doing a lot of saber rattling. can each of you speak to the policy of your candidate towards china as an economic competitor. >> this has been about two aspects of policy on the unfair trade practices and the chinese currency manipulation. the president has worked very hard and felt very strongly both in public and in private that

china needs to appreciate its currency. it has depreciated by about 10%, but that is not enough. it needs to appreciate further. on trade practices, back in 2009, the chinese started flooding the market with tires and threatening the u.s. tire industry. president obama put tariffs on the tire industry to -- the chinese screamed loudly about this. they said they should not put on those tariffs. we are up to six or seven different trade cases to the wto where china has tried to dump

products on the u.s. or subsidize industries where they can take over the market. obama has brought these cases that twice the weight. romney, until six months ago, was criticizing the president for these policies and they hope to have actions to protect the firms. >> does he believe that the president is wrong? i think the biggest thing is the notion that he doesn't need to pursue the new free-trade agreements. the bilateral agreements. free trade is one of those things that everybody agrees it makes americans better off. i believe that the view is that in terms of the bilateral relationship with china, the

currency manipulation and dumping it cheating is rampant, and that no president before has been aggressive enough towards china, and i am not a trade ec onomist is beyond my perview. >> the president signed free- trade agreements with korea, panama, colombia. they did have appropriate protections for american workers were they authorized trade adjustment systems, they are protected. it is important for the economy of free trade that they have appropriate protections for workers. if you don't take care of the workers that get hurt and the politics become impossible. the president has been moving to

increase exports, now have a target for doubling exports, and they are on the way to meeting that target. >> that is why the congress is being flooded with all of these trade agreements that the president has made with other countries. >> it is your turn to ask questions. we will ask you to stand and maybe there is a microphone. there is another microphone stand over there. don't be bashful. i may have to sneak away a little earlier. my capable sidekick will take over. >> i would like to ask a question, how is it possible we have a president that

hasn't had a single budget proposal approved in his entire presidency, and he is allowed to spend $1 trillion a year and nobody is saying anything about it. >> that is not accurate. the president's budget was passed in 2009. in subsequent years, and the congress has operated under continuing resolutions. they are setting very precise budget targets and the agencies have to live under those targets. i certainly agree that the appropriations process has been enough the last few years because of partisan disagreements. when you look at the appropriations, the budget

authority, it has grown to 0.3% annual rate. under president bush, it grew to 9%. the idea that spending is somehow out of control is false. baby boomers are retiring. the 65 years, we will be spending more on their retirement programs at this point in time, they are raising government spending in this decade by 3% of gdp. spending is going up, but not because of out of control appropriations. >> can i add that washington is a crazy place? presidents have had to work with congress's of all sorts of

stripes. sometimes you show up at the game and you have the nfl refs, and times you have,replacement -- and sometimes you have the replacement refs. presidents of both parties have been able to leave by negotiating reasonable proposals from the other side. at legislating them. this is a president with control of the senate which has the reconciliation process that is supposed to be easy to pass a budget and has been unable to get there. it is because he is ideologically different from moderates and republicans to negotiate something that he can send to capitol hill. no cherry-picking. remember that? we can google it. he is not saying that because he is outside the process.

in the end, the president was absent from the final deal. >> soon after the president of office, he started working with republicans negotiating on climate change. mitch mcconnell said my top priority is not to get anything done the next three or four years. the republicans in the senate have decided to filibuster just about every bill, only four months or the democrats have not had a majority. tax cuts for small businesses, putting them back to work, preventing layoffs, firefighters and things being supported in the past. republicans are saying no. a routine debt limit extension

, they tried to create a financial crisis out of it. the lack of bipartisan agreement in this town, i believe is misreading what is going down. >> do you want to change the way the providers have paid, and they should be paid by the quality of their care? how pleased are you measuring that? >> that is a great question. some of the ways built into the affordable care act are readmission rates. if you discharge people and you come back in the same thing, it is a sign they're not doing a good job. the affordable care act as a metric for hospitals is infection rates. if you're basically making your patients -- that is the metric.

there are other kinds of metrics at the outpatient level, what percent of diabetes patients have their blood sugar under control, people with hypertension. it is not easy. it is not an ongoing scientific efforts. >> i have a challenge for each of you. i would like to hear each of you tell me about 3 policies or suggested policies that the other candidate has that you agree with. just one, so we can get some more questions. >> i can think of to right away. it is nice because we get heated sometimes, i don't mean to get angry at him.

president obama helped lead on unemployment insurance reform. it became law in the past and it might be one of the two things in the stimulus plan that he says he has passed now. elsewhere, saying it is a good idea. as an economist, there is a proposal while ago to think about base broadening in terms of the benefit of deductions. they have proposals in the form in which it came that the benefit would be capped at 28%. it would be one of the tax returns. they had the pick two things that were good ideas. >> you refer to the replacement referees, it occurred to me that they were extremely lucky that

they had hall of fame moderator's. >> at lucky that the crowd did not start shouting what they did. >> the good ideas from governor romney, i think that he is absolutely right that we should be cutting corporate rates and a revenue neutral way. cutting him to 28%, that is the kind of thing that one can work out. one thing or he was quite visionary, he created the health insurance framework that became the affordable care act. governor romney had been saying, he wanted to keep the good parts. i hope it turns out to be 98% of

its. >> that is the start of something big. >> i have a different way of asking the question about the deficit. >> revenue as a% of gdp has been up around cents the end of the world war to 17.8%. with virtually no dispersion whatsoever. regardless of the highest marginal tax rates, for 10 years, it was 90%. at that point in time, it was 17.8%. spending has averaged over the same period. right now at 24%, approximately 16%. for how big a cut government is

going to take out of spending, what is your target number, and what is your target for revenue? >> the thing that makes looking back at history not the answer to the question of what we should do going forward is the baby boomers are now retiring. we have got to come up with more revenue or have to come up with other spending and we have retirement-related spending. the commission set targets for revenue, i think, a 22% of gdp and -- sorry, 21% of gdp in spending of 21% of gdp. the president is a little lower than that on revenue but above the long-term average because we have to pay for the --

>> this is the challenge of fiscal consolidation. as we start to align the numbers and think about the tax cut, understand that in a lot of baselines, there is revenue coming. if we made no changes. -- changes, everybody is in the top bracket. governor romney is shooting to have our route 20% of gdp. there is ample room to achieve objectives like that. a historical level of revenue would not be sufficient to balance the budget, but sufficient to stabilize.

>> my understanding is that each presidential candidate needs huge amounts of money to run the campaign. the donors financed the campaigns with different interests. it seems like is inevitable that there will be positives. the financial crisis was caused by a weird fiscal situation, a weird regulatory situation. you would think that both parties were involved with different presidents and different congresses. given in light of this debate and the debate among the candidates, there is a divergence of views of what the facts are, what the analysis is, what the solutions are. my question is, what do you think is possible about why we should believe if there is a chance for rational decisions

on fiscal policy and regulatory policy, without an increase for the national investments, there is an increase in economic growth. >> your very gracious. -- you are very gracious. talked about campaign donors and i can assure you that we are not getting paid. there are marginal products, that is right. the thing that gives me hope, it is not even about this election. people have the say, the thing that gives me hope is that i

have worked with the american enterprise institute, and a look at who is coming through, telling us how to use the fiscal policy. we had the swedish finance minister, man and talk about the changes that we should make. he was right about the current democratic party. i thought they talked about lots of lessons from canada that cut the corporate rate 15%, and i think what gives me hope, it's has the rest of the world learned that approaches like governor romney's are ones you should pursue. the only holdouts are the democrats in d.c.

>> it is amazing that the idea of going back to the failed policies of the last decade were the solution to all problems was cut taxes on the rich and let wall street right its own rules, he wants to double down on them. he doesn't want to extend the bush tax cuts, he wants to give millionaire's an extra tax cut. he doesn't want to preserve the loopholes that allow people to operate corporations and the cayman islands, he was to eliminate taxation of a u.s. firm. the idea that obama -- one second. you took a shot, let me answer the real question. it is not that big.

if we do a balanced approach, like the president does in his budget, we can solve these problems. i think that the congressmen and the president are not going to have a choice. they will get together and solve these problems. it is too significant. if you look back at how we got out of the problem in the 1990's, we have major deficit- reducing legislation in 1997, 1983, it took several pieces of legislation to g the job done. i think that the experience shows that the political process doesn't have to be perfect.

you can yell and scream for two years in the third year, make a bit of progress. you can that 333 and hit a single. you can get things to be fixed. it will be much better after the election, we deal with it. if the congress and the president can start down this path, it will do a lot to make our economy stronger than what is right now. >> it highlights the challenge as well. the u.s. is the only country on earth that doesn't have a territorial tax system. and the notion that the obama campaign would be attacking a similar treatment as some kind

of radical giveaway to business is strange to me. we have to get past this in our history. >> i will speak away. it has been great. [applause] >> for economics, you advocated and for less government spending and higher private-sector competition. i was wondering how that position can be justified for the united states compared to those less advanced with a better outcomes.

>> thank you for your question. what one has asked, what explains the extraordinary growth. i think he has a piece on this that i would confine -- find pretty convincing. the outlook for long-term growth is worse. in the near-term effect, it is bad for growth. why that result is true, what economists calle da solo is t -- called a solo is the huge iphone 5 things.

the second thing is that if you want to have higher consumption in the future, you have to save today. three years from now, you have money in the bank and you can increase consumption in the future. if you have a government that is running massive deficits, when we try to save so we can have a better future, the government is borrowing that money. that means that we won't have the resources in the future to support consumption. the view that government spending for gdp would be a prudent policy, that is not something that is supportable. >> under the budget deal that the president worked out, we will take discretionary spending down to the lowest level of gdp since the eisenhower

administration. we absolutely need a balanced approach to reduce the deficit so we can continue to make the investments of middle-class families. manufacturing, they create the good jobs going forward. when you look at a budget plan like governor romney, going towards the rich, it has to flash -- slash special neri spending beyond this baseline, and they don't specify how they will cut the spending. that really threatens the kind of middle-class investments that are important to economic growth. >> was at healthcare specific?

we can spend less and have better outcomes. what makes you think that we can go the other direction? >> there is an outcome observation that has a lot of debates. the fact is, if your choice is to adopt a system of government provision, single-payer, you can expect long lines and reduce the quality of care. the u.s. has been a place where most of the innovation in the world happens in the health care space. we have not have the government

come in and cut costs. if you want to strive towards tears, we need to have the free- market health care. -- worked here, -- toward c ures, need to have free market health care. >> innovation has been remarkable. i think going forward is to strengthen the program.

these are the last two questions. you both get your shot. >> i work as a department of defense contractor. soldiers with ptsd. typical medicine has negative side effects that acupuncture does not. can you tell me why acupuncture is not covered? >> i think medical treatment for soldiers with ptsd should be decided between them and their doctor. i think having the government decide all the things we can do and cannot is going to reduce our quality of health care, so i absolutely think if we socialize medicine is going to make as were soft and cost a lot of

money, and the notion we are going to get cost savings by constraining access to doctors well we expand coverage to things is something i would not support. >> the affordable care act takes governor romney's approach from massachusetts, which helps people buy insurance, protections that they cannot deprive people of care because of pre-existing conditions, but it is a market- based approach, so i do not know what kevin means when he is talking about socialized medicine. >> i am also a student from johns hopkins in applied economics. i want to provide a book into the debates because of the beginning of both moderator's us specifically -- both moderator's asked specifically what you

would do to spur job growth. i was wondering if you could just walk through what are the biggest considerations you think a small business person thinks before they make an investment decision or a hiring decision or they consider whether the federal budget would be balanced, the sigh of relief. do they consider what the tax rate is going to be, or do they want to know whether be enough demand for the good or service before i make this decision. i wonder if you could rank those three or conclude not -- or include other considerations. >> they regularly asked what the

biggest concern is, and what you see as the economic crisis unfolds and as we have gone forward is the percentage of small business people who said worried about who whether their customers are going to be there next year tripled and became the highest concern, and it stayed up there as the highest concern. the concern about regulations has not gone up by all, so it comes back to what i said at the beginning of this debate. we need a policy on jobs. we need to give small businesses tax cuts if they hire new workers or give raises to existing workers, but there is a

big difference if we are worried about him and -- about demand, and it romney and paul ryan's proposals, because they are going to shrink aggregate demand and cost us 1 million jobs, so i think there is a clear contrast between the candidates on jobs, and there is a 2 million job advantage on the president's side. like to take a moment to thank jeff and david. i think once again the stakes are clear that if you think raising taxes on small businesses, a huge fraction comes from raising taxes and is going to create jobs, then you

should definitely vote for president obama. if you think having fiscal consolidation and 1986 style tax reform will create jobs, you should vote for governor romney. we have laid out our differences. in the end that is the bottom line. president obama does not have a plan. he has got a budget that did not get any votes from democrats and a top marginal tax rate he refused to increase when he had 60 votes in the senate, and governor romney has a plan that is a 90 it -- 1986-style plan that will turn the country around, and that is the choice our country faces right now. >> in the hierarchy of small- business, which matters more, and the presence of demand?

just came to one side of that. good >> the president and -- i think his view has been it is demand. supply and demand are determined simultaneously, so we have to create an environment where businesses are willing to hire again, so you cannot just say it is one or the other. it is both, so we need a prudent plan that does so with transparency in a way that creates preconditions going forward. >> there are a lot of drawbacks of these extended campaigns, but there is one advantage because you get to see what decisions people make informed judgments

act if theyhey would ou were president, and we have seen president obama has consistently made the right decisions for american workers and american families. he made a tough decision to rescue the american auto industry when others did not think that was a good idea. he stood up to unfair trade practices in china, and he stepped in when the housing market turned down to make it possible for homeowners to refinance to prevent mortgage foreclosures, and what we have seen consistently from governor romney is making the wrong calls on these issues. good he said we should lead detroit go bankrupt. he said we should let the housing market hit bottom.

he took the chinese side on the tired debate, so as americans think about what is before them, if they want to choose a president who is going to make the right decision for middle- class families and workers and not take us back to an environment based on special rules and tax rates for high income people and the regulation of wall street, the choice is clear. president obama is your choice if wld you care about is a strong economy of the middle class. >> you want to make the closing benediction? >> i would say i have the easy job today, and that is to say thank you to our moderators. good good economic policy making is about setting priorities, recognizing resources, and making choices. it is about intellectual and

political. the subtext of this debate is that we and the administration face huge challenges. they have found the ability to make the best decision and take the right path, however tuffet is. -- tough it is. none of them are easy, but we appreciate the willingness to talk about it. they are very committed to sponsoring open forum and debates like this one. fidelity is very interested in sponsoring debates. we know that sound policy with respect to fiscal policy is a key ingredient for healthy markets, regardless of the upcoming election cycle, and who

they are going to continue to oppose this type of discussion. in march we are going to have our policy meeting right here in d.c., so we are going to get a great opportunity to talk about all of these issues in march, and thank you to the moderators and most importantly, to the audience for joining us and asking all these great questions. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the first presidential debate is next week. on wednesday, october 3, cspan radio and c-span.org.

in a few minutes, a debate between virginia's senate candidates. from new york city, a look at the jewish vote this year and after that, a discussion with economic advisers for the obama and romney campaigns. tomorrow morning on " the washington journal, stuart patrick with a preview on president obama's speech at the un, and we will talk with the oklahoma attorney general on new challenges to the president's health care law. also susan weinstock on hidden fees. >> we underestimate how much we forget of our own ideas and the things we agreed.

-- the things we need. we are terrible if an idea is a fleeting sense that something is interesting and then it disappears. one thing i find it is not just to write things down, but to keep everything together. do not over organized, because you want interesting collisions between your ideas, but the important thing is to go back and read all your notes. -- re-read all your notes. that is what it was like for most of the great minds during the enlightenment. they would stitch together these passengers from books they were inspired by, and they would go back and read the book, which was clippings of all these other

ideas, and their intellectual presence was formed by this constant 3-imagining of other people's ideas. >> stephen johnson will be the guest next month, taking your calls and tweets. we will look at cyber culture and computer networking. >> two former general -- now virginia governor's were running for the u.s. senate. they participated in a debate led by david gregory. >> welcome to the virginia senatorial debate between tim kane and george allen hosted by

the chamber of commerce. i am the moderator of today's debate. i want to begin by come -- by covering the rules. the debate will last one hour. i should note the questions are determined by us. they have not been perceived by the candidates or ruled by the chamber. each candidate will have time, followed by a robot code. we will conclude with a closing statement. i want to welcome our panelists today. the bureau chief has been

covering politics for 20 years. he joined the post in 2008 as a congressional logger -- blogger, and we have still crossed -- gilcrest. let's begin by hearing opening statements. by aorder was determined korean talks. let's welcome tim kane. [applause] next we welcome the former governor and former senator george allen.

[applause] we will start with governor cain. your two-minute opening statement. >> it is great to be back with the chamber of commerce. it reminds me of a similar event seven years ago. we talk about transportation, and i was very proud to be working on those in my time as governor. we talked about education. we put in place the largest package to expand institutions, and we talked mostly in the chamber about economic development, and we landed in

companies like volkswagen. we also won accolades every year. i am proud of accomplishments, but i am especially proud we did them in the midst of the worst recession and in the midst of a global collapse. we have a senate to be fakes. -- 6. we have to grow and the economy we invest in infrastructure projects, and we win the talent race but will allow us to come up with alternative energy. we have got to fix the budget,

and we need a balanced approach in short-term and long-term, and we will talk about that challenge, but the most important thing we have to do is to good results over rhetoric, partnership over partisanship, and if i have the honor to serve as governor, i will govern as i have in the past. >> thank you. >> it is good to be with so many neighbors and friends of fairfax, and i remember all the accomplishments we have had working together over the years, whether convincing businesses to relocate or investing in our schools and colleges or working with leaders to secure funding for key projects. i am very grateful for the partnership. i want to thank my friend tim kane.

we both love virginia and have worked to make it better. at a time when so many people feel our country is on the wrong track, i hope we can have a positive conversation that will inspire people to the ideas and opportunities that will build a better future. susan and i have talked to tens of thousands of virginians. they still believe in the american dream, and they want to restore, make sure children have access to quality education so young people can pursue their dreams. they want to unleash the enormous economic potential. they want to reinvigorate with tax policies, reasonable regulations, so they have the uncertainty to hire again. they do not want politicians

endangering hundreds of thousands of lives in northern virginia and using them as pawns to demand higher taxes for a budget deal. these are tough times, but we can create a more caring and prosperous america icon on and that is a positive agenda i look forward to discussing today, and the test is which approach is better for job-creating virginia businesses. >> i want to begin by talking about the role of government for virginia and the country. this is important to the commonwealth, and it is also occurring in the shadow of the presidential debates. i would like to ask about a 47% we heard about this week. governor romney talked about how there is 47% of the country that and not pay federal income tax.

he says they believe they are victim and a the government has the responsibility to take care of them that believe they are entitled to health care and food and housing and now, you name it. there are over 1 million virginians who fall in that category of not paying federal income tax. what would you do about that? the thing that would change, and what do you think about whether to many virginians are too dependent on government for basic needs in their lives? >> i have heard those statements, but i deeply disagree with the sentiment expressed by governor romney. but i do not need virginians who think they are victims, and the notion they need people to have responsibility for them is divisive. the last thing we need is to divide people against each

other. this is divided, and we ought to pulling people together. i think as we talk about fiscal policy, everybody has to be in the game if we are going to fix our issues, and we have an excellent opportunity to do that now. we have a bill, and that is how do we deal with budget cuts? let's come together, and i have a specific idea about how we can come together. we will let the bush tax cuts expire for people making more than $500,000. we will fix medicare so we can negotiate on prescription drugs. we will let the tax subsidies expire.

we can do that in the short term. the >> do you think everybody in virginia should pay something in federal income tax? >> everybody pays taxes. >> i would be open to a proposal. and many of the 47% pay a higher percentage than he does. perhaps this is the standard bearer of the republican party. 47% believe they are victims. the you share that vision of america, and what would you do about the 47%? >> the best thindicator is from the past. if somebody has a job, they are

helping their families. 300,000 new jobs were created. another big success is welfare reform, and we wanted to promote work ethic and with people out of poverty towards independence so they have dignity of a job. i remember having a press conference where they were hiring but the competition between domino's pizza and pizza hut on who could hire the most. a reporter insults and a woman and said something like what kind of job is this making pizza? they said, how do you think i started? i started making pizza, and the mother stood up with a domino's outfit and said, i think it is

before the daughter to see someone voting. i want to see people keep more of what they earn. tim has a different point of view. it >> i want to get back to my question, which was very specific what the standard bearer said. he said 47% of americans are too dependent on government. i asked to you share that vision of america, and what would you do to deal with that 47%? >> the best social program is a job. >> you think half the population sees themselves as victims?

>> i look at it positively. >> would you disagree with governor romney on this point? >> i have my point of view, and my view is the people of america still believes in the american dream, and our responsibility is to make sure this is a country where everyone has an equal opportunity to compete and but if your dreams common o, look at the records, who has created more opportunities. i mention welfare reform. those are people who were temporarily out of work. even those who are disabled are out now -- walk to work. that is a great characteristic of americans when they do not let themselves as victims. they want the government said gives them opportunity to be a role model for their children.

>> take a moment for bravado. >> i do not think the question about whether euan agreed or disagreed now is hard. it is very straightforward. we are a state that has seen too much divisive politics. one thing i am proud about is i really see a tremendous effort to turn our back on divisive politics of the past. my wife is with me. her dad turn the state's back on segregation an integrated public schools because he said it was past time for virginia to have an aristocracy of merit, and this generation has rejected the kind of division contained in that speech. it might have been on the -- off the cuff, but sentiment is one of virginians do not agree with, and i am thankful they do not.

we can come together. let's prove we can come together, and let's come together on the most important issue in resolving the fiscal challenge that can create a problem for jobs. >> i want to ask about something defense contractors started referring to as the s word --sequester. there is the prospect of losing 200,000 defense jobs. averting those cuts will require compromises and a different kind of deficit reduction plan.

at stake, how can you say no to any type of tax and revenue increase, even if it is paired with a greater degree of spending cuts? >> getting our fiscal house in order in washington. i saw this as being another example of washington leaders not making decisions, putting off decisions to yet another commission, which, if it failed, as it did, it would be the responsibility of the federal government, which is national defense, as well as it being what is known to be over 200,000 technology and defense jobs in virginia. what we need to do is repeal or replace obamacare. but will sit trillions in spending, and that is harmful for business. i think we need to cut out and look at where there is redundancy in government. the government accountability office has put that forward. federal government employees, we have to reward them for cost- saving ideas. in the long term, a balanced

budget amendment. tim said in the last debate that this is the right thing to do. now, he has, up with a plan. i will ask you, with your plan, have you done an analysis of the impact of jobs with your plan, and if so, who did the analysis, and what did it show? >> the plan is a compromise, and it is specific, unlike anything i have heard in the last 60 seconds. we have to deal with the sequestered over the next 10 years. let's do three things. george allen voted for tax cuts, and he voted for them to be temporary. the reason was if he made them a permit, you would bust the deficit. it is time to let those tax cuts expire for those making more than $500,000. if they go back to where they were, we were in belt largest expansion in the history of the united states.

fix medicare. allow negotiations for prescription drugs. that will save $240 billion over 10 years, and finally, takeaway subsidies from the big oil companies. they are very profitable, but they do not need our help. what you end up with then is not a $1 trillion problem. you end up with a problem in the $200 billion range. raising the ceiling, a default for the nation. he spoke out against the fairfax chamber and other chambers, and now he is saying, "wait a minute. we cannot make cuts." when he is running as the guy who wants to make cuts. he has more sides then a rubik cube.

>> what your so-called plan would do to jobs. i think you should be taking into account what the impact is on jobs, and our economy, which is a major, major concern. you talked about bob mcdonnell and eric cantor. what they did was pass a measure that would avert these devastating cuts to our national defense and jobs in virginia. what has this than that done? absolutely nothing. they have not passed a budget in 3.5 years. they were part of a committee that you went around campaigning for. you have to start out with what the house passed, and then look at reforming the tax loopholes. the proposal i have will create more than 500,000 jobs per year, and we have to unleash our american energy resources, and that will create more than

1 million jobs in the country and give money to the federal government without raising taxes. those are positive solutions to improve our lives and our revenue, make our country more secure, and improve people's quality of lives. >> let's move on. >> governor kaine, i am wondering if you could say specifically if you have entertained the idea of getting rid of the deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations, and if not, what types of deductions would you be willing to eliminate? >> i am glad you asked that. it is the second step in the process. we have to solve the sequester issue before the year end. i have a plan on the table, but that does not end the challenge. we then have the challenge on the revenue side and on the spending side. i know how to do it on the spending side.

as governor, i cut $5 million out of the budget. on the revenue side, i do agree with the proposition, and this is something that george and i have debated about before, and we are essentially in agreement, that the right thing to do about revenue, after we let the tax cuts expire, as i explained, we fill in deductions and exclusions and reduce tax rates. you can do it and make it simpler some businesses and families do not have to have a tax account to figure it out. i think the charitable and home owner deduction policies are very important. it is not about each individual deduction but instead looking at a proposal where there would be an aggregate total, an aggregate amount of deductions that you can play. the battle of each individual

deduction could take congress decades. this is not a unique idea. others have advanced it. having a structure of aggregate total deductions is more likely to work going forward. >> the two separate tax processes we have. i am indicating a freedom to choose a flat tax. i think it would be unfair to take away the mortgage interest deduction and other deductions that people have used to make investment decisions. to all of a sudden change them would be unfair. however, if people want to have a simpler tax code your deductions or no deductions, and they can fill it out on one piece of paper and multiplying it by the rate that it is, let the taxpayers decide. it is really what hong kong has done, and what they have found

is with people choosing the flat tax, many went to be simpler tax. right now, our federal and government imposes a worst in the world 35% on jobs-creating businesses in our country. the average is 25%. i am advocating doing it at 20% because i think america should be better than average. this will lead to 500,000 jobs per year. tim does not have an analysis of his jobs plan. his is one of always trying to increase taxes. lower taxes create more jobs, makes our country more competitive, and it is amazing to me that tim wood raise taxes on people on used cars and raising taxes on people making as little as $17,000 per year will put in jeopardy defense and technology jobs, and in my view, the men and women of our armed forces should never be used as a bargaining chip.

>> as you take a moment to respond, when you talk about eliminating deductions, you would do that for everyone or just high-income earners? >> taking veterans hostage on economic issues, that is exactly the kind of name-calling that we have got too much of in washington. we can debate policies. but that is the kind of name- calling that we have seen too much of in washington, and what is wrong is not going to be fixed with more of that. he was a u.s. senator. he was a senator for six years. during his time in the senate, his fiscal policies turned massive surpluses into massive deficits. it went up every second george allen was a u.s. senator. he voted to raise the debt ceiling four times and to raise his salary after york times.

now, he is trying to look like a conservative, but the actions do not match his words. with respect to the particular questions on deductions, i think the right question will be some aggregate examination of deductions rather than try to fight the entrenched issues, and you can have the amount or percentage of deductions vary by income, with the way the tax code is set up already. >> we are out of time. >> may i have some time to rebut? >> not according to your rules. you'd decided. >> governor allen, virginia voters are divided on whether they want they want this to stay or go, partly because it is so complex.

do you want to completely get rid of the law as it stands and start over on help desk care reform from scratch, or would you favor some other method? >> i will answer the first part and then rebut some of the comments he made. with the debt, it is the spending in washington that has gone up to $54,000 per cent and in spending. tim criticizes the tax cuts we pass. they helped to create 7 million jobs in our country and averted a recession after the devastating attacks on our country on 9/11, so the idea of who is fiscally responsible and who is going to create jobs, i think we will demonstrably improved job opportunities. now, on the tax law. this is also an impediment. i have heard from small business owners and community hospitals that this is harmful. small businesses do not want to

get over 50 employees, and somewhat to make some of their employees part-time, and that will make others have to get jobs part-time. i do think it ought to be repealed and replaced. some provisions are good in it. i think covering children of to age 26 on a parental policy is good, especially since one- third of the kids graduating from college in this weak economy are having to move back home. i think we have to have affordable and portable health savings accounts, where people can take them from job to job. with the northern virginia technology council, some folks have had three jobs before age 30. that is a good idea. and they ought to be able to band together across state lines and have more competition, more toys, and affordable health

care, and i think we ought to allow the states greater flexibility in managing medicaid, and i'd think they will do the more efficiently. >> i will start where george started with the record. they were dealing with time bombs that are still going of today. it was unprecedented in american history. nobody has done that, and nobody has certainly cut taxes while you are trying to wage a war. expanding medicare without paying for it, unprecedented. and to persist in the notion that they should be made permanent when the cbo says they had to be temporary or bust the deficit, it would demonstrate that a second term of george allen would be very similar to the first. the affordable care act. there have been 43 votes to repeal the affordable care act already, and i think there was a lawsuit that got some attention.

the last thing we need to do is spend our time looking in the rearview mirror. we do not need to go back. the uninsured went up by millions, and premiums went up by over 60% when he is there. i am glad to hear george acknowledge some positives about the bill. we need to do more positives, largely around fixing costs. this medicare idea that we put on the table is a way to find cost savings to bring down costs in a way that will help the budget, help seniors, and will not jeopardize the quality of the program. >> there are about 6 million americans who would want to look in the rearview mirror. that is the no. 2, in effect, a tax increase, many in the middle class, they were failing to get health care pursuant to the individual mandate.

that is about 2 million more that was initially said. it take a moment to respond to that. >> this same group of people will have the ability to purchase insurance on health exchanges and have the ability to get free preventive care under medicare or prescription drug discounts under medicare. that same group of people can no longer be discriminated against because they are women and have a pre-existing condition. having a pre-existing condition and denying them coverage. there might be a cause, but there was already in cost. people going to emergency rooms and seeking care and shifting the cost to others. responsibility is not a bad principle. >> governor, do you want a moment to respond to that? i met a philosophical question. according to the rules, you get one minute.

i promise you, i am not making this up. we are taking more time away from you as we debate it. >> bottom line, are you committed to universal coverage, and how do you do this without universal coverage? >> well, here is the thing. there are so many things wrong with this current health-care tax law. in addition to adding $1 trillion in spending, we are taking $700 million out of medicare. that is why seniors are so concerned that they will have access to doctors. there are some that said they will not take any more medicare patients. having these decisions made by medicare doctors and patients, not bureaucracies. i would make it a reversible tax credit, where people get

coverage for major medical procedures, and by having its portable, it means that if somebody moves from job to job, they do not have to worry about a pre-existing condition that they or somebody in their family may have , so the me, that is a positive approach. it puts patients and hospitals and doctors in charge rather than washington. that would be a paradigm shift. the solution is not moving the $700 million from medicare, which is something we have to make solvent. it is in precarious shape. we will be right back, after this. we continue with our discussions. >> governor kaine, whether you think same-sex couples should be issued marriage licenses the same way, marriage equality under the law. in order for them to be equal, would not all couples have to

be allowed to get a marriage license. >> you know, as i get older, i have come to the conclusion that been for equality is never a bad thing. we do not make a mistake when we follow the basic constitutional prescription, that everyone should be entitled to equal protection under the law. my wife is here, and i will say a bad relationship we have had is one that i wish everyone would have, a long-term relationship, where you celebrate the joys, in view mourn the losses -- and you mourn the losses, where you build up memories to sustain you into old age, i think everyone should be able to have that regardless of sexual orientation. i would like everyone to be able to have that and not have to hide it. i think it should be recognized and even celebrated, and i have

taken the position since i have started the campaign that relationships should be treated equally, equally under the law, same responsibilities. i would allow churches as they do today to continue to recognize which relationships and they recognize in the church. whether they title a same-sex relationship, civil union or a marriage, but the test to me is whether the legal rights or responsibilities that someone else has, they should be able to have the same legal responsibilities and rights that i have. >> i just want to pin you down. do you believe in gay marriage, recognizing the institution of marriage being impossible and, indeed, should even be legal between a man and a man and a woman and a woman? >> it has traditionally been state policy.

i would like the state legislatures to make a decision as to whether they would accord this protection -- >> you are not prepared to say -- and when >> let me finish. to me, it is our people treated the same and given the same rights and responsibilities. i think legal equality should be the policy. >> governor, 1.5 minutes. >> i believe marriage should be between one man and one moment, and that is the definition i have supported. i do not believe in discriminating against people because of their sexual preference. this is the way i have operated by senate office, as well. and look at people's capabilities, their skills, their willingness and being effected. to me, one of the most important things people can do is to make sure people have job

opportunities, and we were talking about the health care measure. that health-care measure is a real impediment to jobs. whether you are a small business or a large business, this law is an impediment to you growing your business. i heard from a small-business owner who said her husband works for a company with 300 employees, and they were going to drop insurance. this is very disconcerting. when one talks about what is the best social policy for our country, jobs. jobs is the most important aspect, and i think family is the most important institution in our society, and i think we should be judging people by their character and competence, not by the color of their skin or by their sexual preferences. >> i want to go back to an issue, which seems to be an issue for republicans, and

generally. why do you think you pull much better among men -- among men than women? 14 points. is this a republican party problem? take 30 seconds. >> i think we are going to do very well with men and women, and after this debate, people will listen to this, and there are mothers that i have talked to, whether they are married or unmarried, they care about jobs and the economy. if somebody is unmarried and working, or if they are married, they could be working, and they are also caring about the future of their families. a large percentage of graduates are unemployed or underemployed. i think we will be united behind these constructive ideas and send a message to the world that america is open for business with the right tax and

regulatory and energy policies. >> governor kaine, your one- minute rebuttal. >> these are economic issues. the status of a relationship, if someone cannot have their relationship recognized, the inability to get insurance, that is an economic issue, and with respect to women, if you force women to have an ultrasound procedure against their will and paid for it, that is an economic issue. if you deny people the ability to make constitutional choices, even whether or not to purchase contraception, that is an economic issue. when george allen was in office, he supported an amendment to enable employers to take away contraceptive coverage for their employees. these are women's issues, but

they are bigger than that. they are family issues and economic issues, and it is demeaning to the thing that they are little social issues. women are more than half of this economy, and we have to make the right decision. >> there was a verbal insult directed at a campaign worker, which was an insult that many viewed as an ethnic slur. it still lingers in the minds of some voters. what do you say to those who are still troubled by that comment, how they should give you a second chance, and how did that comment change you as a candidate and a person? >> i have stated on many occasions that that was a mistake. i apologize for it. he had a hard job to do

following me around the commonwealth of virginia. losing is a humbling experience. i did not like losing. sometimes you learn much more from losing than you do from winning. one thing that my father has always taught me, and he was in sports, when you get knocked down, you get back up. whether someone is a woman or a man, they are going to care about jobs and the economy more than anything else, so we are working as hard as we can to make sure this campaign is one that motivates people to constructive, positive ideas, it is not just rhetoric. it is a record i had as governor and as senator. we were able to work down party lines. we were able to get our economy moving, and with that, the tax cuts, reducing the size of government, over 300,000 net new jobs.

tim tried to raise taxes. the members of the general assembly had to work on this. tuition skyrocketed, and over 100,000 jobs were lost in virginia during his four years. those were the approaches. this provides more americans with greater opportunities to control their own destinies. >> i think the biggest question that virginians are wrestling with as they look at this election is a look at a congress that is broken, and it is broken because people will not work together. we do not have a shortage of ideas. what we seem to have a shortage of is finding common ground and working together. a similar question was raised again to george. i pointed out that, look, we all make mistakes. in public life, we make them in

public view. but there was a notion that this young man had to be welcomed into the real virginia. that was the challenging one. we know that a lot of politics in this state over time has been separating people into real virginians or other virginians, and we have seen that this week at the national level, but that sentiment is still out there. we are only going to solve the big problems, balancing the budget, dealing with a new energy future if we work together, and, george, you famously said as you were governor that you enjoyed knocking things down people's throats. and senator clinton, pushing the campaign when you were chairman of the senate republican campaign committee. some of it may be just sports or competitive rhetoric, but that is not what it is going to

take to fix washington. we need more bridge building. we need people who can find common ground. that is the one thing we are missing in congress right now. we have to put people in place who have a demonstrated track record and have the ability to do it. >> jim, you pick out certain quotes from me, and let me pick out some of the ones that people have seen about our records. "the washington post," which rarely says anything good about republicans, said this about me. >> governor allen has been markedly successful in generating business investment in the virginia." the virginia education association said our budget was the best they had seen in a number of years. democratic senators, and they

support you, tim, they have stated publicly how we have worked together, whether it is health screenings for newborn children or expanding access to broadband, and then when tim was taking office, here is what the newspaper said. quote, "is tim kaine is looking for a role model, the george allen term as governor was one of the most consequential of the 20th-century," and this was not including some of the things we did, like freezing tuition. the u.s. chamber of commerce endorsed me. >> there have been some reports in recent days suggesting that the u.s. consulate in benghazi may not have had heightened security. do you think this could have been handled better either before or after